Why police detectives and the FBI consult psychics

[billvon]

Prove it then. Show us one TV crime documentary that was claimed to be true that was totally fabricated.

From your original claim:

=========================
"Like I said, you can't just make up stories that never happened and present them as factual on TV."

Here's one example:

==========
Travel Channel show ‘staged, false, fabricated and distorted’
2 August 2011
G Shepard/ Survival

A TV series about an Amazonian tribe has been slammed as ‘staged, false, fabricated and distorted’ by experts on the tribe.

‘Mark & Olly: Living with the Machigenga’ was shown on the Travel Channel in the US, and on the BBC last year. In the show Mark Anstice and Olly Steeds lived in a Matsigenka Indian village for several months to show the ‘reality’ of life among the tribe.

But now two experts on the tribe have gone public with a string of highly damaging accusations. Dr. Glenn Shepard is an anthropologist who has worked with the Matsigenka Indians for 25 years and speaks their language fluently. Ron Snell, the son of US missionaries, grew up with the tribe and and is also fluent in the Matsigenkas’ tongue.

Just some of Shepard’s accusations, published in the highly-respected journal Anthropology News, are:

• In order to present a ‘false and insulting’ portrayal of the tribe as sex-obsessed, mean and savage, many of the translations of what the Indians are saying are fabricated.
• Many events presented as real in the show must have been ‘staged’.
• A key scene in the show in which Olly is subjected to painful ant stings, since “according to Matsigenka tradition he must be cleansed” and “endure the ancient punishments” for buying deer meat is denounced by Shepard as ‘fabricated and [with] no basis in ethnography.’
========================

Here's a crime show that was not only fabricated, crimes were actually committed by the show to increase popularity:

================
TV crime presenter 'ordered murders of his rivals to boost his ratings'
Aug 13, 2009 00:00
By Don Mackay

A TV presenter is accused by police of a series of murders to boost the popularity of his crime show.

Viewers loved the way Wallace Souza's camera crew were always first on the gruesome scene.

But police claim it was because he ordered the hits. They also allege the victims were Souza's rivals in his other profession - drug trafficking.

Detectives believe his TV show Canal Livre was not only reporting violent crime but was also behind it.

Souza, Brazil's answer to Crimewatch's Nick Ross, was also secretly a Tony Soprano figure, prosecutors say. He faces a variety of charges, including drug trafficking and weapons possession.

But Souza remains free because, for now, he has immunity thanks to another string to his bow - he is a politician with a seat in the Amazonas state legislature.

His son Rafael has been arrested on charges of murder, drug trafficking and illegally possessing guns.

Souza, who was once expelled from the police force, says the claims are an attempt by jealous rivals to smear him.

Authorities believe he ordered at least five murders. Each hit, it is alleged, furthered his career as a gangster, a TV presenter and a politician.

It eliminated a rival drug trafficker, boosted his show's ratings and demonstrated his claim that the region he represented was plagued with crime.

Police told the Associated Press the orders to execute came from Souza and his son and that TV crews from the show, now off the air, were alerted so they could get to the scene first.

State Security Secretary Francisco Cavalcanti also said: "On several occasions they fabricated facts. They fabricated news."
===========================

 

[Magical Realist]

From your original claim:

=========================
"Like I said, you can't just make up stories that never happened and present them as factual on TV."

Here's one example:

==========
Travel Channel show ‘staged, false, fabricated and distorted’
2 August 2011
G Shepard/ Survival

A TV series about an Amazonian tribe has been slammed as ‘staged, false, fabricated and distorted’ by experts on the tribe.

‘Mark & Olly: Living with the Machigenga’ was shown on the Travel Channel in the US, and on the BBC last year. In the show Mark Anstice and Olly Steeds lived in a Matsigenka Indian village for several months to show the ‘reality’ of life among the tribe.

But now two experts on the tribe have gone public with a string of highly damaging accusations. Dr. Glenn Shepard is an anthropologist who has worked with the Matsigenka Indians for 25 years and speaks their language fluently. Ron Snell, the son of US missionaries, grew up with the tribe and and is also fluent in the Matsigenkas’ tongue.

Just some of Shepard’s accusations, published in the highly-respected journal Anthropology News, are:

• In order to present a ‘false and insulting’ portrayal of the tribe as sex-obsessed, mean and savage, many of the translations of what the Indians are saying are fabricated.
• Many events presented as real in the show must have been ‘staged’.
• A key scene in the show in which Olly is subjected to painful ant stings, since “according to Matsigenka tradition he must be cleansed” and “endure the ancient punishments” for buying deer meat is denounced by Shepard as ‘fabricated and [with] no basis in ethnography.’
========================

Here's a crime show that was not only fabricated, crimes were actually committed by the show to increase popularity:

================
TV crime presenter 'ordered murders of his rivals to boost his ratings'
Aug 13, 2009 00:00
By Don Mackay

A TV presenter is accused by police of a series of murders to boost the popularity of his crime show.

Viewers loved the way Wallace Souza's camera crew were always first on the gruesome scene.

But police claim it was because he ordered the hits. They also allege the victims were Souza's rivals in his other profession - drug trafficking.

Detectives believe his TV show Canal Livre was not only reporting violent crime but was also behind it.

Souza, Brazil's answer to Crimewatch's Nick Ross, was also secretly a Tony Soprano figure, prosecutors say. He faces a variety of charges, including drug trafficking and weapons possession.

But Souza remains free because, for now, he has immunity thanks to another string to his bow - he is a politician with a seat in the Amazonas state legislature.

His son Rafael has been arrested on charges of murder, drug trafficking and illegally possessing guns.

Souza, who was once expelled from the police force, says the claims are an attempt by jealous rivals to smear him.

Authorities believe he ordered at least five murders. Each hit, it is alleged, furthered his career as a gangster, a TV presenter and a politician.

It eliminated a rival drug trafficker, boosted his show's ratings and demonstrated his claim that the region he represented was plagued with crime.

Police told the Associated Press the orders to execute came from Souza and his son and that TV crews from the show, now off the air, were alerted so they could get to the scene first.

State Security Secretary Francisco Cavalcanti also said: "On several occasions they fabricated facts. They fabricated news."
===========================

I don't see anything about crime stories being fabricated and presented as factual. Remember...alleging something does NOT equal evidence. I can allege that the reality show Survivor is faked. Many have in fact claimed it. But no one's presented any evidence of it yet.

 

[Magical Realist]

Ok... in both cases it was the psychic who sought out the police thru the tip line... but anyhow... why do you thank police departments dont have at least 1 psychic on staff.???

I would venture that it is embarrassing for police depts to be found relying on psychics for crime solving. It suggests the police force is too inadequate to solve crimes on their own. Despite the known success of using them, there is still a taboo against even considering them on the official level.

 

[billvon]

I don't see anything about crime stories being fabricated and presented as factual.

Here:

State Security Secretary Francisco Cavalcanti also said: "On several occasions they fabricated facts. They fabricated news.

Remember...alleging something does NOT equal evidence.

?? Of course it's evidence. A government security official who has been investigating them said they fabricated facts. That is good evidence that they fabricated facts.

 

[Magical Realist]

Here:


?? Of course it's evidence. A government security official who has been investigating them said they fabricated facts. That is good evidence that they fabricated facts.

Nice try but no cigar. Causing crimes does not equal reporting fictional crimes. The crimes were quite real. Anything else besides, where was this one, in Brazil? lol!

 

[billvon]

Nice try but no cigar. Causing crimes does not equal reporting fictional crimes. The crimes were quite real. Anything else besides, where was this one, in Brazil? lol!

You asked for a crime show where the stories were fabricated. I provided one.

Do you want something different?

 

[Balerion]

You asked for a crime show where the stories were fabricated. I provided one.

Do you want something different?

It's called "moving the goalposts."

 

[leopold]

?? Of course it's evidence. A government security official who has been investigating them said they fabricated facts. That is good evidence that they fabricated facts.

maybe.
it might be good evidence of a habitual liar.
it might be good evidence of a disgruntled employee.

two disconnected individuals saying the same thing could be good evidence.

 

[Russ_Watters]

LOL! They have the real police officers, the detectives, and the family members involved in the case.

Please acknowledge the three factual errors I found in the two descriptions I looked at:
1. Victim's name was wrong.
2. Not a cold case.
3. They hadn't discarded the suspect due to the beaten polygraph.

Everything is verified.

You assume. You haven't provided any verification and I am quite sure you've made no attempt to verify anything.

Like I said, you can't just make up stories that never happened and present them as factual on TV.

Lol, that's so cute! Do you really believe that?
Does the name Kardashian mean anything to you?

How about:

Let’s settle that score: Amish Mafia is not real. Amish Mafia is fake.
The only thing legit about Discovery Channel’s proclaimed "reality" show is the filming is done in Lancaster County. All storylines and character portrayals, according to our research, are not just fabrications, but complete creations of the show's producers. None of these characters actually exist as portrayed on the show.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/loc...cle_d45cea48-a3a4-11e3-9cc3-0017a43b2370.html

There would be definite legal repercussions from the families and the police departments involved if they just made up details that never happened.

Well in many cases the families are believers, so that isn't an issue. And yes, you can make up anything you want about the police and put it in a TV program. But in some cases, they don't have to: the police are often believers too -- that's why they allow the "psychics" to be brought in. The point is, those involved don't often know that the "psychic" didn't really help them: that's what makes it a scam!

The allegation of cold reading simply does not apply to crime cases. There's no one sitting there with the psychic with more information than they have.

What? In the two cases that I examined, that's exactly what happened. That's one of the things that so impressed the police: the "psychic" told the police information they already knew but didn't think the "psychic" knew.

The police simply lack the information that can lead them to the body or the killer.

Well, no: in the first case they already had the killer. In the second case, nothing was verified but it sounded like the police quickly followed a hot trail that had nothing to do with the psychic.

 

[Magical Realist]

You asked for a crime show where the stories were fabricated. I provided one.

Do you want something different?

You said regarding TV shows presented as factual really being fictional:

You may believe that, but since it is in fact done by television stations regularly, you are factually incorrect.

You haven't even come close to proving that claim. If Brazil is all ya got, then forget it. You obviously have nothing.

 

[Magical Realist]

Please acknowledge the three factual errors I found in the two descriptions I looked at:
1. Victim's name was wrong.
2. Not a cold case.
3. They hadn't discarded the suspect due to the beaten polygraph.

And so this proves the crime story is made up HOW?

You assume. You haven't provided any verification and I am quite sure you've made no attempt to verify anything.

I provided the police testimony in the cases as well as family comments. All the information is on the webpage and the crimes themselves can be crosschecked with any simple google search. So far you have presented nothing showing any of the cases to have been made up. Nitpicking over name misspellings on the website and other trivia won't cut it.

Lol, that's so cute! Do you really believe that?
Does the name Kardashian mean anything to you?

I don't know of anyone who doubts that the Kardashians are a real family who are really living their lives in real houses while being filmed. Do you think they're just actors reading scripts acting on Hollywood sets? lol!

How about:

http://lancasteronline.com/news/loc...cle_d45cea48-a3a4-11e3-9cc3-0017a43b2370.html

Does anyone claim the Amish Mafia is real?

Well in many cases the families are believers, so that isn't an issue. And yes, you can make up anything you want about the police and put it in a TV program. But in some cases, they don't have to: the police are often believers too -- that's why they allow the "psychics" to be brought in. The point is, those involved don't often know that the "psychic" didn't really help them: that's what makes it a scam!

Yeah.,.the people and investigators actually involved in the case are believers. Imagine that. Do you have some evidence that the 81 crime cases listed on that webapage DIDN'T happen like they were portrayed? How DID they happen then?

What? In the two cases that I examined, that's exactly what happened. That's one of the things that so impressed the police: the "psychic" told the police information they already knew but didn't think the "psychic" knew.

The police confirmed that the psychic knew nothing of the identity of the suspect. And yet she nails it anyway. You simply have no evidence it happened in other way.

Well, no: in the first case they already had the killer. In the second case, nothing was verified but it sounded like the police quickly followed a hot trail that had nothing to do with the psychic.

The police HAD a suspect that they actually had to let go because he passed a polygraph and had a solid alibi. But the psychic told them to stick with him and that he was the killer. Based solely on that they brought him in again and he confessed. See written statement of polygraph expert below. As for the second case, all you concluded was that the timeline was too short to consult a psychic. You have no evidence for this whatsoever. Once again you are focusing on irrelevant trivia as if this disproves the testimony of those involved. It doesn't. Not by a longshot.

"Another case I had worked on through the years. It is still ongoing but there are some interesting points that may yet be verified. In "Is He a Serial Killer", Nancy discussed the murder of a woman in Belvedere. I had been brought in to polygraph two suspects. They both passed their polygraph tests and I cleared them. But a few days later I received a phone call that the second person, John Reese, had been brought back in for questioning and confessed to the murder! In my entire career running the polygraph, this is the only known error that I made. Imagine my surprise when I read in Nancy's book that the detective was quoted as saying that it was her identification of Reese that directly led to him being brought back in! Thank God for Nancy. Because of her, Reese was caught. Even though I am retired from the New Jersey State Police, I still conduct polygraph examinations and consult on open cases. I do not hesitate to recommend that investigators contact Nancy for help on their cases. In fact, I feel I would be remiss if I did not. She is a valuable resource for law enforcement."---http://www.nancyorlenweber.com/police_references.php

 

[Russ_Watters]

And so this proves the crime story is made up HOW?

Again: please acknowledge that you recognize that these factual inaccuracies exist. I'll answer your question after you acknowledge that they are real.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Separate post because the first point was very important...

I provided the police testimony in the cases as well as family comments. All the information is on the webpage and the crimes themselves can be crosschecked with any simple google search. So far you have presented nothing showing any of the cases to have been made up. Nitpicking over name misspellings on the website and other trivia won't cut it.

I didn't ask (state) you if it can be checked, I asked if you did. Clearly, you have not. These are extraordinary claims from a source that has clear reliability problems and they therefore need to be verified before they can be believed. You are approaching the problem from the wrong direction by assuming the claims true until proven wrong.

I don't know of anyone who doubts that the Kardashians are a real family who are really living their lives in real houses while being filmed. Do you think they're just actors reading scripts acting on Hollywood sets? lol!

You're missing the point: the family is real, but they are still actors, reading scripts on Hollywood sets. The family is real, but the show - many/most of the events depicted and the way they are depicted - are largely fake. That's the same as the TV show you are using as your source: it is based on true events, but it is not true to those events.
http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/154047/kim_kardashian_could_be_forced

Does anyone claim the Amish Mafia is real?

Yes! Read the link I gave you.

Yeah.,.the people and investigators actually involved in the case are believers. Imagine that. Do you have some evidence that the 81 crime cases listed on that webapage DIDN'T happen like they were portrayed? How DID they happen then?

Well, the first one I looked at, the key fact of what the psychic did was easily shown to be false (that the psychic told the police to keep looking at someone who was cleared as a suspect), so that's not a good start. There is no way in hell I'm going to go case by case to debunk all 81. There's just no need since the TV show is proven unreliable by the first one I looked at.

The police confirmed that the psychic knew nothing of the identity of the suspect.

You made that up. I won't say you are lying because I think you simply don't have a good grasp of reality. The quote you posted from my source said "Weber wasn't told before hand that Reese was a suspect." Not told that he was a suspect isn't the same as being unaware of his existence.

You simply have no evidence it happened in other way.

Well, yes, I've shown you that your source made several "errors" (in quotes because they were no doubt purposeful embellishments) including the very first sentence/claim in the article about just how amazing her fingering of the suspect wasn't. But beyond that, you're again trying to flip the burden of proof here: it isn't on me, it is on you. Your source is proven to be unreliable and therefore you need to find another source to back it up.

The police HAD a suspect that they actually had to let go....

You're just repeating the error and adding more of your own embellishment top of it:
1. He hadn't been arrested, so he couldn't be "let go".
2. He was still a suspect: He was not cleared.

As for the second case, all you concluded was that the timeline was too short to consult a psychic. You have no evidence for this whatsoever.

Again: burden of proof is on you, not me. Your source is riddled with errors and the story seems implausible. You need to go get a better one if you want to convince anyone of any of this.

She is a valuable resource for law enforcement."---http://www.nancyorlenweber.com/police_references.php

Helpful hint: you can't use a person as their own validation. Otherwise, you need to accept that I'm Santa Claus and Batman because I'm telling you that I am.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I would venture that it is embarrassing for police depts to be found relying on psychics for crime solving. It suggests the police force is too inadequate to solve crimes on their own. Despite the known success of using them, there is still a taboo against even considering them on the official level.

Ok... but dont it seem a bit odd that out of thousands of police departments knowin how successful psychics are at solvin crime not 1 woud risk buckin the trend an hire a full time psychic... an a short time later the departments success at solvin crime woud be so much beter than non-psychic police departments... the wall of taboo woud fall an the department head that brout it down woud be crowned in glory.???

 

[Russ_Watters]

More from a good wiki on the subject:

To assess the then-growing claims of psychic crime-solving, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (now Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) created a "task force" of investigators headed by Joe Nickell, PhD, a former magician, mentalist, and investigator for the world famous Pinkerton Detective Agency. The result was a book, introduced and edited by Nickell, titled Psychic Sleuths: ESP and Sensational Cases (1994),[2] and containing a final analysis of claims by psychologist James Alcock.

Psychic Sleuths—still perhaps the only truly skeptical, book-length treatment of the subject—demonstrated that claims of psychic crime-solving repeatedly failed scrutiny. [emphasis added]

Most of the cases investigated for Psychic Sleuths depended on retrofitting, the apparent use of cold reading (a psychic's artful technique of fishing for information while appearing to gain it paranormally), and other ploys such as exaggeration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_detective

You need to put more effort into this, MR. You need to learn about how the techniques described are used: Retrofitting, cold reading, exaggeration. You should be able to recognize - even if you believe some of this is real - that a great many of these are proven false and that none have proven true. You live in the ignorance margin. You assume that when you don't know what the truth is, that entitles you to make up whatever truth you want to believe. You live in a fantasy land.

 

[Read-Only]

This thread took a huge nosedive when SHC entered the picture. And finally took a HUGE drop when the current state of affairs was reached - a true ALL-TIME low!

It's past time when the whole thread should be locked and discarded!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Magical Realist]

This thread took a huge nosedive when SHC entered the picture. And finally took a HUGE drop when the current state of affairs was reached - a true ALL-TIME low!

It's past time when the whole thread should be locked and discarded!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What? Lock a thread when you have no arguments to offer? Sounds like an admission of defeat to me..

 

[Magical Realist]

Ok... but dont it seem a bit odd that out of thousands of police departments knowin how successful psychics are at solvin crime not 1 woud risk buckin the trend an hire a full time psychic... an a short time later the departments success at solvin crime woud be so much beter than non-psychic police departments... the wall of taboo woud fall an the department head that brout it down woud be crowned in glory.???

I think they do consult them, but not in a public sense. That's what my OP asked, why do police departments rely on information provided by psychics?

 

[Russ_Watters]

I think they do consult them, but not in a public sense. That's what my OP asked, why do police departments rely on information provided by psychic?

And that answer is that in general, no, they don't.

 

[Magical Realist]

Separate post because the first point was very important...


I didn't ask (state) you if it can be checked, I asked if you did. Clearly, you have not. These are extraordinary claims from a source that has clear reliability problems and they therefore need to be verified before they can be believed. You are approaching the problem from the wrong direction by assuming the claims true until proven wrong.

I have no need to crosscheck the stories since I'm not the one doubting they happened. It is you who are making the outlandish claim, in spite of police testimony and family member testimony, that all these stories are false and made up. So the burden lies on you to show that they are. So far, beyond a few nonvalidated claims here and there, you haven't done that and indeed appear to be unwilling to do so. So what are we to make of that? When someone claims the 81 crime cases didn't happen the way they are reported but has absolutely ZERO evidence for this? Not much it seems.

You're missing the point: the family is real, but they are still actors, reading scripts on Hollywood sets. The family is real, but the show - many/most of the events depicted and the way they are depicted - are largely fake. That's the same as the TV show you are using as your source: it is based on true events, but it is not true to those events.
http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/154047/kim_kardashian_could_be_forced

I see. So because of the Kardashians TV series, the Psychic Detectives crime episodes are all made up and factually incorrect. I'm not following your logic there.

Well, the first one I looked at, the key fact of what the psychic did was easily shown to be false (that the psychic told the police to keep looking at someone who was cleared as a suspect), so that's not a good start. There is no way in hell I'm going to go case by case to debunk all 81. There's just no need since the TV show is proven unreliable by the first one I looked at.

No..you were wrong about that as I already showed. Here again is the CROSSCHECKED lie detector expert's own statement of how it happened:

"Another case I had worked on through the years. It is still ongoing but there are some interesting points that may yet be verified. In "Is He a Serial Killer", Nancy discussed the murder of a woman in Belvedere. I had been brought in to polygraph two suspects. They both passed their polygraph tests and I cleared them. But a few days later I received a phone call that the second person, John Reese, had been brought back in for questioning and confessed to the murder! In my entire career running the polygraph, this is the only known error that I made. Imagine my surprise when I read in Nancy's book that the detective was quoted as saying that it was her identification of Reese that directly led to him being brought back in! Thank God for Nancy. Because of her, Reese was caught. Even though I am retired from the New Jersey State Police, I still conduct polygraph examinations and consult on open cases. I do not hesitate to recommend that investigators contact Nancy for help on their cases. In fact, I feel I would be remiss if I did not. She is a valuable resource for law enforcement."---http://www.nancyorlenweber.com/police_references.php

You made that up. I won't say you are lying because I think you simply don't have a good grasp of reality. The quote you posted from my source said "Weber wasn't told before hand that Reese was a suspect." Not told that he was a suspect isn't the same as being unaware of his existence.

I said she identified the suspect by appearance and by his initials without knowing any of that. That's an impressive hit in my book.

Well, yes, I've shown you that your source made several "errors" (in quotes because they were no doubt purposeful embellishments) including the very first sentence/claim in the article about just how amazing her fingering of the suspect wasn't. But beyond that, you're again trying to flip the burden of proof here: it isn't on me, it is on you. Your source is proven to be unreliable and therefore you need to find another source to back it up.

I already showed that Nancy Weber was NOT aware of the suspect's identity and that it was solely because of her insistence that he was brought back in after being released. Your other "errors" that the name of the victim was misspelled and that it wasn't really a "cold case" simply have no relevance to the factuality of the case. If you have nothing else then just admit you have no proof the case is fictional. Particularly since you seem so unwilling to gather any evidence for it being so.

You're just repeating the error and adding more of your own embellishment top of it:
1. He hadn't been arrested, so he couldn't be "let go".
2. He was still a suspect: He was not cleared.

He was cleared as being a suspect. Do I really have to nitpick this one detail with you in the light of the overwhelming success of the case itself?

Again: burden of proof is on you, not me. Your source is riddled with errors and the story seems implausible. You need to go get a better one if you want to convince anyone of any of this.

No I don't. The evidence is testified by police detectives and a polygraph expert. The burden lies on you, since you are claiming all this is all made up, to show that it is. So far you have failed to do this.

Helpful hint: you can't use a person as their own validation. Otherwise, you need to accept that I'm Santa Claus and Batman because I'm telling you that I am.

Wow..all those autobiographies in the library thrown out now as fictional accounts! Everyone just making up the things that personally happened to them. What a weird little world you must live in!