Real-Life X-Files (21 page)

Today virtually all of the old, supposedly discredited techniques are in vogue. Psychics like the late Dorothy Allison, regarded as America’s most famous psychic sleuth, employ astrology at times, while Sylvia Browne receives information from her “spirit guides.” Dutch psychic Marinus Dykshoorn and others have plied their dowsing rods and pendulums in the supposed service of crime detection. Noreen Renier em-ploys still another old divination technique called psychometry, by which
she purportedly gets psychic impressions from objects connected with a particular person. Some psychics claim to use clairvoyance (“clear-see-ing”) whereby they supposedly “see” remote images and scenes as if they were viewed on a movie screen. Psychic Bill Ward even studies people’s “auras” and reads the lines in their palms.

At least on the face of it, this disparity of approach—in which one technique seems to work about as well as another—does not seem to provide a credible basis for psychic sleuthing. Neither do specific tests. For example, the seventeenth-century French dowsing sleuth, Jacques Aymar, was extensively tested in Paris, with embarrassing results: he failed to detect the guilty and even accused those who were innocent, while inventing absurd excuses for his failures. In 1991, tests of British “police psychic” Nella Jones indicated that her ability to “psychometrize” possible murder weapons was nonexistent. Indeed, tests conducted by Los Angeles Police Department researchers, reported in the
Journal of Police Science and Administration
, showed that information generated by psychics was no better than chance would allow (Reiser et al. 1979).

Psychic “Sting”

Indeed, a cleverly conceived and strikingly effective psychic test was conducted in May 1995 by Philadelphia WCAU-TV’s Herb Denenberg. A starting point for the investigation was Jody Himebaugh, whose eleven- year-old son Mark disappeared November 25,1991. Although Himebaugh conceded that the likelihood of his son being found alive was very small, more than one hundred alleged psychics had contacted him with their visions. He said they typically saw a “dark car,” “the number 5,” or similar “clues” that were never any help.

Prompted in part by the Himebaugh case, Denenberg first consulted with me to devise a suitable strategy. Then he and other members of his “Newscenter 10” unit went undercover to test the alleged powers of “so called psychics,” some of whom, the investigative segment announced, “prey on the parents of missing children.” As the focus of their test, Denenberg’s team utilized a fifteen-year-old named Kate. Although film clips showed her playing softball in her front yard, various tarot card readers and “psychic advisors”—as well as certain 900-number clairvoy-ants—were told that the schoolgirl had been missing since January. In response, some psychics saw her experiencing “physical harm”; one col-
lected a fee of $50 for seeing her “confined against her will”; another charged $180 to report that the girl had run away and was “probably pregnant”; and while one psychic envisioned her only two miles from home, another saw her far away in Florida. Not one among the several psychics ever divined the truth about the teenager—that she was not missing—or about the true purpose of Channel 10’s investigation.

When confronted with the evidence that their psychic powers were inoperative, the alleged clairvoyants chose not to appear on camera. However, a spokesman for “Miss Ruby, Psychic Reader and Advisor,” conceded she should have foreseen the sting operation, and she refunded the TV station’s money. Denenberg’s investigative report also featured Frank Friel, who has thirty years of experience in law enforcement. He stated that he had never had a psychic provide a valuable clue, and he criticized the alleged seers for their phony offerings, which he described as “catastrophic to the well-being” of the families concerned, and, in- deed, “out-and-out fraud.” Himebaugh said psychics took an “emotional toll” on families. He said he had twice ended up in the hospital suffering from anxiety attacks brought on by psychics’ false hopes.

Sting II

On May 11, 2000, the television show
Inside Edition
featured a similar expose. A producer and researcher had contacted me about alleged police psychics, and we discussed the evidence in between their reading of my
Psychic Sleuths
(Nickell 1994). This book presents the results of a special “task force” of experienced researchers and investigators I enlisted to help me investigate the claims of those who offer themselves as psychic crime solvers. I also made
Inside Edition
aware of Herb Denenberg’s psychic sting.

Subsequently, the TV reporters obtained a childhood photo of a staffer and presented it to a professional “psychic” who claimed that the “missing child” was dead, while a hidden camera secretly recorded the session. Later,
Inside Edition
arranged to interview the alleged clairvoyant, whose powers once again failed to alert him to the setup. Even when the targeted individual was introduced to him, he initially refused to ac- cept the truth. Finally, under pointed questioning he broke off the interview. The segment went on to expose Sylvia Browne’s claim, on the
Montel Williams
TV show, to having solved a case that in fact continued to re-
main unsolved. The
Inside Edition
reporter admitted that—like other media—in the past, they had aired uncritical reports about psychic sleuthing because they knew such stories were popular. Their new program helped make up for past lapses.

Retrofitting

But what about testimonials from experienced homicide detectives who have actually used psychics? Most reported successes appear to be like the one that a New Jersey police captain attributed to Dorothy Allison. Her predictions “were difficult to verify when initially given,” he said. “The accuracy usually could not be verified until the investigation had come to a conclusion” (quoted in Dennett 1994). Indeed, this after-the- fact matching—known as “retrofitting”—is the secret behind most alleged psychic successes. For example, the statement, “I see water and the number seven,” would be a safe offering in almost any case. After all the facts are in, it will be unusual if there is not some stream, body of water, or other source that cannot somehow be associated with the case. As to the number seven, that can later be associated with a distance, a highway, the number of people in a search party, part of a license plate number, or any of countless other possible interpretations.

Other explanations for psychics’ reputed successes include the following: (1) Some psychics exaggerate their successes, even claiming positive results in cases that were failures or that never even existed. (2) Psychics may use ordinary means of obtaining information that they then present as having been psychically obtained. For example, psychics have been accused of impersonating police and even of bribery of police officers in order to gain information. In one instance the psychic, unknown to a detective, had actually been briefed on the case by others. Shrewd psychics can brief themselves by studying newspaper files or area maps, and some make use of the fortune-teller’s’ technique of “cold reading” (a technique in which the psychic fishes for information while watching the listener’s face for reactions that suggest correctness or error). (3) Another potential explanation for psychics’ apparent successes is faulty recollection of what was actually said. The fallibility of memory is well known, and many stories of psychic success get better as they are told and retold. (4) Many psychics deal in vague generalities: for example, one psychic reported perceiving, “the names ’John’ or ’Joseph’ or some-
thing like that.” (5) And there are social and psychological factors that may influence people to accept the accuracy of information. Obviously their own belief system will have an effect (Nickell 1994, 11-20). These factors—combined with the ever-present technique of retrofitting—can make a “psychic” of almost anyone. The result is like painting the bull’s- eye around the arrow after it has been shot. Some credulous police officers even help the psychic in the reinterpretation necessary to convert a failure into an apparent “hit.” For example, in one case when there was no nearby church as had been predicted, property owned by a church was counted as fitting the criterion.

The Bottom Line

Except in the extremely rare case in which a psychic was actually involved in the crime or had apparently received secret information (as from a tip), psychics rarely lead police to concealed bodies or unknown assailants. Of course they may use their own logical skills, or they may benefit from luck or perseverance, but there is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime. Instead, crimes are invariably solved by police who search crime scenes, interview witnesses, and perform all of the myriad tasks necessary to locate a missing person or to convict a criminal. Common sense suggests that if psychics really had the powers they claim, then they would long ago have identified the “Unabomber” or have discovered the remains of missing Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. If they cannot accomplish such missions individually, how much more telling is their collective inability to do so.

Actually, the case against psychics is worse than just their inability to provide information that actually solves crimes. A far more serious problem exists with regard to the wasted resources of police departments who expend precious time and human activity in following up on a psychic’s meaningless “clues.” In one instance, the Nutley, New Jersey, police spent the whole of an afternoon digging up a drainage ditch that Dorothy Allison mistakenly thought contained the body of a missing boy. In another case, the fire department pumped the water from the flooded basement of an abandoned building in a fruitless search for a boy’s remains, which eventually were discovered across town. Even worse, psychics have wrongfully accused persons of committing crimes, a memorable example being that of Peter Hurkos, “the man with the radar brain,” who mistak-
enly identified an innocent man as the notorious Boston Strangler (Nickell 1994). These examples answer the question that is often asked by those who defend the use of psychics, “What harm can it do?” Another argu-ment defenders use is that on occasion, a psychic’s pronouncements prompted further search efforts, resulting in the discovery of the missing person’s body, even though the psychic did not actually identify the location. But surely police should not have to rely on psychics to urge them to do more thorough work.

In brief, knowledgeable police officials resist the temptation to employ psychics. They know that psychic claims lack any scientific verifica-tion and that, in fact, psychics do not solve crimes. No longer should police solve crimes and let publicity-seeking occult pretenders take the credit.

References

Nickell, Joe. 1994.
Psychic Sleuths
. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus.

Dennett, Michael. 1994.“America’s Most Famous Psychic Sleuth: Dorothy Allison,” in Nickell 1994,42-59.

Reiser, Martin, et al. 1979. An Evaluation of the Use of Psychics in the Investigation of Major Crimes. Appendix A of Nickell 1994,193-203.

Chapter 18

A rash of new “ghost” photographs is plaguing the western world. I first became aware of the mysterious phenomenon when I received a call at my office at the Center for Inquiry. It was from a Lockport, New York, couple who were experiencing some spooky occurrences and were concerned about their young children. The most unusual phenomenon, they said, was found in some of their color snapshots. Although they had seen nothing at the time either of two photos was taken, each contained strange, unusually white shapes the couple could not explain. (See
figures 18.1
and
18.2)
.

Similar pictures were taken by another couple. They had appeared with me on “The Danny Show” (where they presented UFO video sequences). Afterward, discovering I had written a book they praised,
Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation
(1994), they gave me some snapshots that puzzled them. Looking at them later, I recognized a few that had similarities to the earlier photos. A Post-It Note on one indicated it had been made in Mexico and was “similar to photo [in]
Fate magazine
.” Naturally, the notation led me to the October 1995 issue of Fate, which featured a nationwide ghost photo contest. It was (to quote Yogi Berra) deja-vu all over again! Beginning with the Grand Prize Winner s photo, the mysterious strandlike forms infected all six winning photos. Citing my book
Camera Clues
at the end, the accompanying Fate article explained how some of the ghost effects in the photos the editors had received were due to such causes as film-processing errors, lens flares (caused by interreflection between lens surfaces), and outright hoaxes. What was left, they opined, “were a few pictures that may represent an ectoplasmic energy or kinetic energy often associated with the presence of a ghost; however, experts tell us that kinetic energy can be related to a living being as well” (“Fate Ghost Contest” 1995).