Why police detectives and the FBI consult psychics

[Captain Kremmen]

Yes..sadly a group of aging shut-in science nerds posting in an online science forum is no gauge for what is the norm on these issues.

:bawl::bawl::bawl:
MR's being horrible.

 

[Sarkus]

Typical absolute statement of the psuedoskeptic, giving the impression he has researched EVERY case of psychic detective work and/or scientific testing and found it to be just good guessing.

Nothing pseudo about my skepticism. I don't need to research EVERY case - I just need to identify cases that have passed scientific scrutiny.
There aren't any.

You raise the PEAR project as an example - and yet this is criticised quite fairly for its results so far not being repeated, even by itself, lack of scientific rigour, misuse of stats, and for the fact that one person was a participant in 15% of the experiments and seeming to have contributed 50% of the so-called positive results. Even a quick look at wiki can tell you that much.

When pyschic phenomena pass scientific peer review, then I'll listen. Until then, unless you can provide evidence that any test is, scientifically, more than one would expect from the normal...?

Is it really so hard to read the cases I've already posted?

I have read them.
It is so clouded in lack of scientific rigour, in selection bias (i.e. only examples where the psychic seemed to get it right), and within them examples of the vagueness of claims that the detectives then fit their findings to.

Is it really so hard for you to not take everything you see at face value?

 

[Magical Realist]

I don't expect you to. That just isn't what you are about.

Say it: none of that helped find a body.

Shifting the goalposts again are we? Before it was "psychics never helped in the case." Now it's "psychics never helped to find the body." You just can't admit you are wrong can you?

Interesting. So despite saying in your previous post that you would start dealing with the other sentence in your OP, you are still ignoring your own thesis from your OP. Again: not shocked.

I quoted tons of cases where psychics helped solve cases. Again, see post #194. How is that ignoring the thesis of my OP?

No, of course I'm not hoping you forget: I'm hoping you'll eventually start addressing that point! (again: not holding my breath). Note that a negative is inherently unprovable: All I can do keep knocking-down every piece of crap that you throw at the wall. So far so good.

Maybe you shouldn't assert things you can't prove then.

So some police are as gullible as you -- so what? That isn't the point here. The point is that the psychics' advice didn't lead to finding the bodies. The police found the bodies on their own. A quote that says the police believe the psychic help is not evidence that the psychic helped. Again: I pulled a clear quote out of the mess you vomited on the thread that said explicitly that all of the hints the psychics gave yielded nothing. It's your quote. You can't successfully pretend you didn't post it.....though perhaps with all this flooding I would be willing to believe you didn't read what you posted.

Sorry. But I'm going by what the actual police said about the case. If that frustrates you oh friggn well!

 

[Magical Realist]

for the fact that one person was a participant in 15% of the experiments and seeming to have contributed 50% of the so-called positive results.

Why would using one person numerous times invalidate the experiments? Ofcourse we would focus on those who were particularly good in their psychic abilities. Using one person 50% of the time would not be an issue at all in proving psychic ability. This is ofcourse typical of the kind of criticism we get on such experiments. Complaints about details that have no bearing at all on the validity of the results. "Oh well, there was a full moon that night...etc and etc.."

 

[Sarkus]

Why would using one person numerous times invalidate the experiments? Ofcourse we would focus on those who were particularly good in their psychic abilities. Using one person 50% of the time would not be an issue at all in proving psychic ability. This is ofcourse typical of the kind of criticism we get on such experiments. Complaints about details that have no bearing at all on the validity of the results. "Oh well, there was a full moon that night...etc and etc.."

Because the experiments they conducted were supposed to be aimed at demonstrating/proving the effect of consciousness in general - not just one or two specific people.
That it is one person causing 50% of the positive results significantly calls into question the validity of their claims, and limits it to one or two people - not the population, to consciousness, as a whole.
Thus the claims of their testing is called into question.
If it was to prove that psychic ability exists in specific individuals then where are the details of those supposedly talented few that were causing all the positive results, and where is the further testing of them that conclusively proves it?
The existence of a single person causing such a level of positive results (relative to the wider group) would/should more rationally lead one to the notion that such a person is artificially inflating the figures through deceit, fraud, unintentional means etc. The fact that there is no indication or evidence that this single person was investigated further, and shown to be psychic, is rather telling of the veracity and rigour within their experiments.

Just a small amount of research on the PEAR project also highlights numerous other issues with their claims. Including their own inability to repeat their findings.
It is no surprise, therefore, to find that they closed back in 2007, and while they moved their research under the auspices of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories, they now lack the credibility that comes with the Princeton name, and will undoubtedly find it difficult to persuade the scientific community until, that is, they start to apply genuine scientific rigour in their research.

So, again, where is the scientific evidence of psychic ability?
I don't doubt that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence - as there is for the Yeti, the Loch Ness monster, alien abduction and the like.

 

[Magical Realist]

Because the experiments they conducted were supposed to be aimed at demonstrating/proving the effect of consciousness in general - not just one or two specific people.

Was that their mission statement? Here's their actual mission statement:

"The purpose of the program, established in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, an aerospace scientist who was then Dean of the university’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, was “to study the potential vulnerability of engineering devices and information processing systems to the anomalous influence of the consciousness of their human operators.”

And that was proven through hundreds of repeated trials. Why would this not mean that human consciousness in general isn't capable of psychic effects? I'm not following your distinction between a few humans proving esp and proving esp in general is not only possible but real as well.

Here's more information on the project, which concluded its research at Princeton after 28 years due to having demonstrated it's aim.

"The research was funded by gifts from Princeton alumni James S. McDonnell, patriarch of the McDonnell Douglas Aerospace empire, Laurance Rockefeller, Donald C. Webster, and by numerous other philanthropic benefactors.

Jahn and his colleague, Brenda Dunne, a developmental psychologist from the University of Chicago who has served throughout as PEAR’s laboratory manager, together with other members of their interdisciplinary research staff, have focused on two major areas of study: anomalous human/machine interactions, which addresses the effects of consciousness on random physical systems and processes; and remote perception, wherein people attempt to acquire information about distant locations and events. The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measurable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model.

“We have accomplished what we originally set out to do 28 years ago, namely to determine whether these effects are real and to identify their major correlates. There are still many important questions to be addressed that will require a coordinated interdisciplinary approach to the topic, but it is time for the next generation of scholars to take over.” Jahn and Dunne said.

Their future plans involve oversight of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL), a non-profit organization established in 1996 to promote quality research, educational initiatives, and practical applications of consciousness-related anomalies www.icrl.org. The members of ICRL represent some 20 countries and a broad range of professional backgrounds, and most have had some association with the PEAR program in the past. Jahn and Dunne currently serve as advisers to Psyleron, www.Psyleron.com, a Princeton, NJ-based enterprise that produces a line of state-of-the-art technology to enable public exploration of human/machine anomalies. They will both also continue to serve as Officers of the Society for Scientific Exploration: www.ScientificExploration.org.

"More than 50 publications are available on the PEAR website, and Jahn and Dunne’s textbook, Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt, 1987) has been in print for nearly 20 years. As part of their extensive archiving efforts, Jahn and Dunne have recently prepared a 150-page anthology of those PEAR publications pertinent to the burgeoning fields of complementary and alternative medicine, for a special issue of Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, edited by Dr. Larry Dossey, which is currently in press. An educational DVD/CD set entitled The PEAR Proposition, produced by Strip Mind Media, offers a comprehensive overview history and accomplishments of the laboratory is also available, and can be obtained on-line from the ICRL website at www.icrl.org."

That it is one person causing 50% of the positive results significantly calls into question the validity of their claims, and limits it to one or two people - not the population, to consciousness, as a whole.

I see. So only a test of the whole population of humans would prove the existence of ESP. That's ludicrous. If you want to investigate an ability in humans, ofcourse you test those with the best record of results. That's just basic common sense. And how many subjects in all were involved in the 28 years of testing? Do you have that figure?

Thus the claims of their testing is called into question.

No it is not.

If it was to prove that psychic ability exists in specific individuals then where are the details of those supposedly talented few that were causing all the positive results, and where is the further testing of them that conclusively proves it?

"More than 50 publications are available on the PEAR website, and Jahn and Dunne’s textbook, Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt, 1987) has been in print for nearly 20 years. As part of their extensive archiving efforts, Jahn and Dunne have recently prepared a 150-page anthology of those PEAR publications pertinent to the burgeoning fields of complementary and alternative medicine, for a special issue of Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, edited by Dr. Larry Dossey, which is currently in press. An educational DVD/CD set entitled The PEAR Proposition, produced by Strip Mind Media, offers a comprehensive overview history and accomplishments of the laboratory is also available, and can be obtained on-line from the ICRL website at www.icrl.org."

The existence of a single person causing such a level of positive results (relative to the wider group) would/should more rationally lead one to the notion that such a person is artificially inflating the figures through deceit, fraud, unintentional means etc. The fact that there is no indication or evidence that this single person was investigated further, and shown to be psychic, is rather telling of the veracity and rigour within their experiments.

No..the ability of one person to do something extraordinary as opposed to many persons doing it does not invalidate their ability in the least. Does the fact that Barry Bonds has the all time record for homeruns mean he cheated somehow? Ofcourse not.

Just a small amount of research on the PEAR project also highlights numerous other issues with their claims. Including their own inability to repeat their findings.

28 years of hundreds of tests and they never repeated their findings? Horsehockey!

It is no surprise, therefore, to find that they closed back in 2007, and while they moved their research under the auspices of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories, they now lack the credibility that comes with the Princeton name, and will undoubtedly find it difficult to persuade the scientific community until, that is, they start to apply genuine scientific rigour in their research.

Their results speak for themselves. If you'd research them instead of going straight to Wikipedia articles which are dominated by pseudoskeptical propaganda, you'd know this. You'd also know the PEAR remote viewing project replicated many of the results of remote viewing tests achieved by the government-involved Stanford Reasearch Institute's Project Stargate.

So, again, where is the scientific evidence of psychic ability?
I don't doubt that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence - as there is for the Yeti, the Loch Ness monster, alien abduction and the like.

Go to their websites instead of to the latest updated Wikipedia opinion piece. You DO know anybody can contribute to Wikipedia don't you?

http://icrl.org/

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

 

[Sarkus]

Was that their mission statement? Here's their actual mission statement:

"The purpose of the program, established in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, an aerospace scientist who was then Dean of the university�s School of Engineering and Applied Science, was �to study the potential vulnerability of engineering devices and information processing systems to the anomalous influence of the consciousness of their human operators.�

I.e. the effect of consciousness on such devices. Where is this disputing what I said?

And that was proven through hundreds of repeated trials.

Nothing was "proven". Certainly their testing came to certain conclusions, but there is nothing "proven" that passes anything remotely resembling scientific rigour.

Why would this not mean that human consciousness in general isn't capable of psychic effects? I'm not following your distinction between a few humans proving esp and proving esp in general is not only possible but real as well.

Their testing and aim is that consciousness in general has an effect. Not just a few people, but consciousness as a whole.
That they identified (or seemed to) a few people who caused over 50% of their positive results, and tried to push this as being evidence of consciousness as a whole... rather spurious on their part.

Here's more information on the project, which concluded its research at Princeton after 28 years due to having demonstrated it's aim.

"The research was funded by gifts from Princeton alumni James S. McDonnell, patriarch of the McDonnell Douglas Aerospace empire, Laurance Rockefeller, Donald C. Webster, and by numerous other philanthropic benefactors.

Donors are irrelevant, unless you have some reason to take research more seriously due to the people who throw money at it?

Jahn and his colleague....

Nothing in this disputes what I have previously said, nor changes my view of them.

I see. So only a test of the whole population of humans would prove the existence of ESP. That's ludicrous.

I didn't say it would require a test of the whole population, but thanks for the strawman. Let me know when you have exhausted yourself attacking it.

If you want to investigate an ability in humans, ofcourse you test those with the best record of results. That's just basic common sense. And how many subjects in all were involved in the 28 years of testing? Do you have that figure?

No, but there were some millions of studies.
If they are testing the effect of consciousness, and not just the consciousness of a few select individuals, they really should look to exclude bias caused by a single person causing 50% of the positive results, and try to either identify and expand on research of that individual, or remove them from testing so as not to further contaminate the tests. They seemed to do neither.
Their tests also suffered from unrepeatability... even by themselves.

No it is not.

Not by those who already believe, it seems.
By those who try to operate according to the principles of the scientific method - whatever you may think, the claims are indeed called into question.

"More than 50 publications are available on the PEAR website, and Jahn and Dunne�s textbook, Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt, 1987) has been in print for nearly 20 years. As part of their extensive archiving efforts, Jahn and Dunne have recently prepared a 150-page anthology of those PEAR publications pertinent to the burgeoning fields of complementary and alternative medicine, for a special issue of Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, edited by Dr. Larry Dossey, which is currently in press. An educational DVD/CD set entitled The PEAR Proposition, produced by Strip Mind Media, offers a comprehensive overview history and accomplishments of the laboratory is also available, and can be obtained on-line from the ICRL website at www.icrl.org."

And?
Quantity does not equate to quality.
Please show where any of it has been peer reviewed and the claims accepted?

No..the ability of one person to do something extraordinary as to many persons doing it does not invalidate their ability in the least. Does the fact that Barry Bonds has the all time record for homeruns mean he cheated somehow? Ofcourse not.

And while we can indeed see evidence of such baseball feats, where is the testing and evidence of the feat of psychic ability that is able to pass scientific scrutiny?

28 years of hundreds of tests and they never repeated their findings? Horsehockey!

I'm not saying they didn't reproduce tests within the 28 years, but the same people from PEAR couldn't reproduce the results when conducted elsewhere: See "Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 499�555, 2000

Their results speak for themselves. If you'd research them instead of going straight to Wikipedia articles which are dominated by pseudoskeptical propaganda, you'd know this.

The results speak for themselves, as long as you figure in the lack of scientific rigour, the refusal of PEAR to perform experiments that would negate the vast majority of criticism raised at their methodology.
I.e. if you accept that they were performed with inadequate controls, the findings basically amount to nothing that has been "proven". At least not scientifically.

 

[Magical Realist]

Their testing and aim is that consciousness in general has an effect. Not just a few people, but consciousness as a whole.

I didn't read anything about that aim. Just proof of the psychic power of the mind. Which is adequately demonstrated with any human subjects exhibiting such powers. Proving some human test subjects were capable of esp would axiomatically prove that human consciousness is definitely capable of it. How could it not?

And while we can indeed see evidence of such baseball feats, where is the testing and evidence of the feat of psychic ability that is able to pass scientific scrutiny?

In the tests themselves. Can't you look up the papers and read them yourself without just claiming they didn't prove anything based on what Wikipedia said?

And again, how many subjects in all were used in these trials? Do you even know? Or are you attacking the strawman of only one person being used in 50% of the trials because that is all you (or your Wikipedia article) had to
complain about?

No, but there were some millions of studies.
If they are testing the effect of consciousness, and not just the consciousness of a few select individuals, they really should look to exclude bias caused by a single person causing 50% of the positive results, and try to either identify and expand on research of that individual, or remove them from testing so as not to further contaminate the tests. They seemed to do neither. Their tests also suffered from unrepeatability... even by themselves.

Actually if you'd read the paper it says they used 227 subjects and did indeed replicate some of the results. Ofcourse you wouldn't know this only consulting Wikipedia articles and Skeptic websites. Lotta lying going on out there.


https://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/2000-mmi-consortium-portreg-replication.pdf

Here's confirmation of the remote viewing trials which involved 47 subjects:

http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue3/Intuition_3.htm

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_nelson.pdf

Here's numerous replications of remote viewing experiments dating back to the 1970's:

http://www.irva.org/library/articles/

And here's an independent evaluation of results obtained from the Stargate Project conducted for 27 years by Stanford Research Institute, the CIA, and the Pentagon:

"Jessica Utts is a statistics Professor at the University of California, Irvine, and is president of the American Statistical Association. In writing for her part of a 1995 evaluation of our work for the CIA, she wrote: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Remote viewing has been conceptually replicated across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters, and in different cultures. This is a robust effect that, were it not such an unusual domain, would no longer be questioned by science as a real phenomenon. It is unlikely that methodological flaws could account for its remarkable consistency."

 

[Sarkus]

I didn't read anything about that aim.

And therein lies the issue, it seem. You want to believe that's what it is about, so that is how you interpret such things.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Shifting the goalposts again are we? Before it was "psychics never helped in the case." Now it's "psychics never helped to find the body." You just can't admit you are wrong can you?

Again, these are your claims we are analyzing here, MR. I can't goalpost-shift them, only you can: this claim is your claim from post #149.

Clearly, finding a body would be a form of help and in the example you posted, it is the help that is being attempted -- but doesn't happen. If there is another form of help that I've missed in the example, state explicitly and quote specifically what it is! See, that's your game here: you flood-post and then don't provide any specific analysis of what you posted. Then when I pull out a relevant bit and show how it isn't what you say it is, you say that isn't what you were talking about. You are avoiding supporting your own claim, then blaming me for not doing your work for you. That's trolling.

I quoted tons of cases where psychics helped solve cases. Again, see post #194. How is that ignoring the thesis of my OP?

#194 isn't the one we are discussing: we are discussing your post #149/162 and you are dodging it. Again: I'll move on to whichever case you want to discuss next as soon as you acknowledge that you are moving on because you recognize that your claims regarding the case in posts #149/162 are wrong.

Beyond that, your tactic of posting the entire description without analysis isn't good enough either. You aren't doing the analysis work required to prove your claims. Or perhaps you are and you realize your claims failed, which is why you are avoiding them now?

Maybe you shouldn't assert things you can't prove then.

MR, again, these are your assertions, not mine. I'm not trying to prove the negative, I'm just pointing out that you are not proving your claim. Burden of proof shifting is another trolling technique you are trying to employ.

Sorry. But I'm going by what the actual police said about the case. If that frustrates you oh friggn well!

It doesn't frustrate me. I'm secure in my understanding of the issue. But yes, you are more than free to just believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. I won't try to change your mind, I'm just here to point out to the forum what we are dealing with here.

 

[Magical Realist]

Again, these are your claims we are analyzing here, MR. I can't goalpost-shift them, only you can: this claim is your claim from post #149.

Uh no. I didn't claim anything in post #149. I simply provided another among the 90 odd cases where psychics were proved to be right in an investigation. Are you claiming they weren't?

Clearly, finding a body would be a form of help and in the example you posted, it is the help that is being attempted -- but doesn't happen. If there is another form of help that I've missed in the example, state explicitly and quote specifically what it is! See, that's your game here: you flood-post and then don't provide any specific analysis of what you posted. Then when I pull out a relevant bit and show how it isn't what you say it is, you say that isn't what you were talking about. You are avoiding supporting your own claim, then blaming me for not doing your work for you. That's trolling.

Psychics help in all sorts of ways. Identifying the murderer, finding location of murder weapon, motive of murder, method of murder, etc. Regardless, I already posted where the psychic said Gacy had murdered more boys and buried them on his property. That's definitely a helpful clue whether you agree or not. So obviously the psychic helped solve the crime in this case. As they did in the many other cases I listed in #194.

#194 isn't the one we are discussing: we are discussing your post #149/162 and you are dodging it. Again: I'll move on to whichever case you want to discuss next as soon as you acknowledge that you are moving on because you recognize that your claims regarding the case in posts #149/162 are wrong.

I'm discussing the topic of psychics being accurate in their predictions and helping solve crime cases. I don't know what you're discussing. I have done my part by listing around 12 cases where a psychic specifically helped solve a crime. If that's not good enough for you I don't care. Take any one you want and examine it. I don't care.

Beyond that, your tactic of posting the entire description without analysis isn't good enough either. You aren't doing the analysis work required to prove your claims. Or perhaps you are and you realize your claims failed, which is why you are avoiding them now?

The description of the case is good enough analysis. If you have some other analysis you need go ahead and provide it. After you accusing of me of lying and trolling, I'm not particularly interested in doing anything for you at this point.

MR, again, these are your assertions, not mine. I'm not trying to prove the negative, I'm just pointing out that you are not proving your claim. Burden of proof shifting is another trolling technique you are trying to employ.

I've proven my claim. See post #194.

It doesn't frustrate me. I'm secure in my understanding of the issue. But yes, you are more than free to just believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. I won't try to change your mind, I'm just here to point out to the forum what we are dealing with here.

You haven't proven squat except that you have no evidence at all that any of these cases didn't happen exactly as they are described. Nothing you have posted has disproven that psychics are indeed useful sources of information in helping solve crime cases. You know you've failed. I know you've failed. And everyone who reads this thread knows you failed. What more is there to say? Oh..how about "see post #194 for more cases where psychics helped solve crimes." lol!

 

[Russ_Watters]

For now, I'm going to ignore the noise and focus on the one little piece of actual content in your post:

Regardless, I already posted where the psychic said Gacy had murdered more boys and buried them on his property. That's definitely a helpful clue whether you agree or not.

How, precisely, did it help? Did the police dig up a body because of that information?

 

[Magical Realist]

For now, I'm going to ignore the noise and focus on the one little piece of actual content in your post:

How, precisely, did it help? Did the police dig up a body because of that information?

It allowed them to connect Gacy to other murders. Before the psychic said so, nobody knew he had killed many other boys.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Wow..so you can determine latitude and longitude just by looking at a spot on the ocean? lol!

Yes you can , if you will take a look at the charts I'n linking you to you will see that in some of the graphics there's points which have both numbers on them.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes you can , if you will take a look at the charts I'n linking you to you will see that in some of the graphics there's points which have both numbers on them.

Looking at a chart isn't just looking at a spot on the ocean.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Looking at a chart isn't just looking at a spot on the ocean.

But those psychics are supposed to be able to locate "missing" people by showing a location on a map. Again I'm skeptical about them and don't pay much heed to their nonsense. If you'd examine police records most people are found by careful police work and following up on tips and leads.

 

[Magical Realist]

But those psychics are supposed to be able to locate "missing" people by showing a location on a map.

Only rarely. Most of the time it is visual clues of being in that location.

If you'd examine police records most people are found by careful police work and following up on tips and leads.

Yep..most people are because most the time psychics aren't even consulted. And yet here we have 90 cases where the psychics were right on in their information along with testimony from over a hundred police officers. These facts demonstrate unequivocably that psychics provide accurate and useful information in solving cases.

 

[Russ_Watters]

It allowed them to connect Gacy to other murders. Before the psychic said so, nobody knew he had killed many other boys.

Are you saying that before talking to the psychic the police believed there was only one victim? If only certain victims, which victims did the psychic help identify? And how did the psychic do it(what actual information was provided)? And, of course: provide specific sources for these claims.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you saying that before talking to the psychic the police believed there was only one victim? If only certain victims, which victims did the psychic help identify? And how did the psychic do it(what actual information was provided)? And, of course: provide specific sources for these claims.

Who knows. Look up the details yourself.

Oh wait. I DID post a source already:

Police comments:
Lt. Joe Kozenczak said: “The amazing thing is that the police didn’t know about all these murders … she (the psychic) told us. I became a believer in psychics.”
Still Beyond Belief; The Use of Psychics in Homicide Investigations by Joseph R. Kozenczak and Karen M. Henrikson, Des Plaines, Illinois

 

[Russ_Watters]

Who knows. Look up the details yourself.

Not good enough, MR. Again: your claim = your responsibility to provide the evidence/sources/details/logic.

Oh wait. I DID post a source already:

Police comments:
Lt. Joe Kozenczak said: �The amazing thing is that the police didn�t know about all these murders � she (the psychic) told us. I became a believer in psychics.�
Still Beyond Belief; The Use of Psychics in Homicide Investigations by Joseph R. Kozenczak and Karen M. Henrikson, Des Plaines, Illinois

Not good enough: You didn't answer my questions. I asked which ones and what information was provided. I didn't ask if one of the cops thinks the information was accurate, I asked what the information was and I asked how exactly did it help.

Here's the basic problem, MR: cold reading and hot reading are techniques that really are proven to work. Unless it can be proven that the psychic provided information the police neither knew nor suspected, it can't be proven that the information was new and therefore had value. Beyond that, just saying the information was provided doesn't make it useful, which you have claimed it was. IE, saying the police "didn't know about all these murders" does not mean the "psychic" helped find the bodies.

Another way to do it that may be easier...Here's the wiki on the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

I suggest you read it first and foremost because the things you are saying imply you don't know the events of the case very well (more on that later...if you read the article, you may wish to revise some of your claims.).

Then, among other things, you will see that no mention of the involvement of psychics is made anywhere in the article. No big guesses or anonymous informants that could be a cover-story for psychics, just good, fast police work. So in order for psychics to have played a relevant role, you need to point to me where in the article the mention of psychics should be. Like: (for example) they had no idea that there could be bodies in his house until a psychic told them there could be.