ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags psychic detectives , Story House Productions , TV psychics

Reply
Old 18th April 2010, 02:19 AM   #1
Sherlock
Muse
 
Sherlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 535
TV Producers pay psychic $30,000 plus

During a lengthy period of investigations and the use of subpoenas in early 2010, documentation provided directly from major bank depository accounts shows that four of the largest TV production companies creating psychic detective shows paid major fees to "psychic detective" talent.

Story House Productions, with offices in Washington, D.C., as the producers of 'Psychic Detectives' paid a single psychic more than $30,000 --- providing over multiple times checks written on their Citibank account of $5000 "before/after completion of filming" case reinactments.

New Dominion Pictures, based in Suffolk, Virginia paid a single psychic a $6000 payment, and Max Weissman Productions in New York City also signed and stuffed thousand-dollar eye-openers for psychic deposit. A fourth company paid for both the initial psychic filming sessions, and then added regular bi-annual 5-year syndicated royalties.

The result of all this story-telling? For one psychic the deposited income from psychic TV production companies represented greater than a 99% of the income over a three year period compared with checks received directly from public law enforcement agencies. And over a full year apparently as little as 5% of the psychic income was from clients compared to the 95% from TV psychic series production companies.

An analysis based on the number of episodes produced since 2003 after compiling the list of the psychic talent filmed, yields an estimate that several psychic detectives may have earned $65,000 to $105,000 per year for as few as 4 hours of actual master production video. At these rates "truth" and valid claims may not matter as much as creating ever more visions to regurgitate before the cameras.

More information will be released over the next several months as its compiled. Names of specific psychics are not ready for release due to on-going investigations.

Last edited by Sherlock; 18th April 2010 at 02:21 AM.
Sherlock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 04:29 AM   #2
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,709
Psychics have only one Golden Rule: FOLLOW THE MONEY.

And $30,000 is peanuts out of most TV series production budgets.
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 05:10 AM   #3
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,165
$30000 plus what? A toaster?
__________________
no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor
devnull is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 07:38 AM   #4
Bob Klase
Master Poster
 
Bob Klase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,898
Too bad that in lieu of actual payment they didn't just hide $1,000,000 somewhere and tell the psychic it was theirs if they could find it.
Bob Klase is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 09:51 AM   #5
Sherlock
Muse
 
Sherlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 535
Just for point of clarification --- that's a minimum of $30,000 for just one psychic. I recognize these "talent costs" are low compared to Hollywood talent, but $1000 should be a concern. Psychic detective producers generally showcase a "news documentary" facade where the viewer isn't informed the talent being presented is a paid actor/actress "reenacting" the scene --- a scene often based exclusively on their recalled visions.

The other question is how much did the police and sheriff personnel get paid for their on-camera "reenactments"?
Sherlock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 01:20 PM   #6
Questioninggeller
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,048
Originally Posted by amindformurder View Post
Just for point of clarification --- that's a minimum of $30,000 for just one psychic. I recognize these "talent costs" are low compared to Hollywood talent, but $1000 should be a concern. Psychic detective producers generally showcase a "news documentary" facade where the viewer isn't informed the talent being presented is a paid actor/actress "reenacting" the scene --- a scene often based exclusively on their recalled visions.

The other question is how much did the police and sheriff personnel get paid for their on-camera "reenactments"?
Sounds like this research will make for a really good article?
Questioninggeller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 01:23 PM   #7
shandyjan
Master Poster
 
shandyjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N/W England
Posts: 2,119
Originally Posted by Bob Klase View Post
Too bad that in lieu of actual payment they didn't just hide $1,000,000 somewhere and tell the psychic it was theirs if they could find it.
Love that one!
It doesnt surprise me, they are hired in the same way as guests of other types of programmes, its the entertainment business. They dont care about truth or accuracy.
__________________
Belief is the wound that knowledge heals. Ursula K. LeGuin's
A dog is for life, not just for xmas!
shandyjan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 03:56 PM   #8
Ernie M
Critical Thinker
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Psychic defectives

I find it disgusting and reprehensible to see "psychic defectives" (yes, I spelled that correctly) making money and benefiting in other ways, from purported powers they can't prove they possess.

Perhaps legal action against those individuals who claim to "psychically" divine information, as well as the media (ie: television networks) who promote this charade, is in order to help stop the selling of a lie.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.

Last edited by Ernie M; 18th April 2010 at 03:58 PM. Reason: added "networks" to be more specific.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 04:03 PM   #9
RecoveringYuppy
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,859
Originally Posted by Bob Klase View Post
Too bad that in lieu of actual payment they didn't just hide $1,000,000 somewhere and tell the psychic it was theirs if they could find it.
Someone has actually told them where it is and they still can't find it.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 04:04 PM   #10
alleracsum
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by amindformurder View Post
For one psychic the deposited income from psychic TV production companies represented greater than a 99% of the income over a three year period compared with checks received directly from public law enforcement agencies.
This is confusing. Are you talking about law enforcement agencies paying psychics with public funds? Which agencies and which psychics?

I've worked on many TV shows that used real cops or detectives to recreate things or simply be interviewed. The producers were rarely asked to pay anything to the department or the individual cop. If there was overtime involved or the cop was working on his day off the department picked up the tab. Sometimes, they might urge the production company to donate to a local charity. A token amount of money called an "honorarium" might be given to the department or, in the rare case, an actual individual. Cooperating with TV shows is simply good PR for the department -- and in the case of a pending criminal investigation another way to generate public interest and appease the families of victims. Cops can legally "moonlight" but if they were being portrayed or speaking in any kind of "official" capacity, paying them as private contractors would be frowned upon by the production company AND the department.

So, in general, I'm very interested in the OP, but also confused. Can you give more details, please?
alleracsum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 05:48 PM   #11
Robo Sapien
 
Robo Sapien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 538
The only reason that the TV show earnings account for 99% instead of 100% is because of that one cop that said "Here, I'll give you 5 bucks if you just GO AWAY"
Robo Sapien is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 08:21 PM   #12
Tumblehome
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,444
Originally Posted by Bob Klase View Post
Too bad that in lieu of actual payment they didn't just hide $1,000,000 somewhere and tell the psychic it was theirs if they could find it.
Beauty!

If only we could get them to show up at the studio without an implicit promise of payment.
Tumblehome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 08:38 PM   #13
Sherlock
Muse
 
Sherlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 535
There are numerous psychic detectives who claim direct payments from law enforcement agencies. Both Noreen Renier (Virginia) and Laurie McQuary (Oregon) have claimed they have worked directly with/for law enforcement personnel, and Renier has claimed 70% of her "cases" have been solicited and paid directly by law enforcement agencies. A Virginia-based (Lynchburg) U.S. Justice Department Trustee has repeatedly refused to provide W-2/99 income forms filed by Renier to her largest creditor (one owed more than $40,000) over the past year --- even though the documentation was submitted by Ms. Renier as part of her current Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings.

The creditor was given no opportunity to see her W-2/99 forms that would (or should have) shown the sources of income by business name (such as police agencies or key clients). This is certainly odd since creditors normally have the right to examine the income tax filings or W-2/99 forms for self-employed persons declaring bankruptcy. Is this because the U.S. Department of Justice (and two Trustee's based in the state of Virginia) would prefer NOT to allow disclosure of Ms. Renier's income sources because of a previous connection with the DOJ? In previous testimony in Oregon Ms. Renier stated under oath that she received payments for her services directly from an agent with the U.S. Justice Department. And it has already been verified that she spoke at the FBI before U.S. Justice Department staff members on more than one occasion, with the events sanctioned by former FBI agent Robert Ressler.

If you review several of the current psychic detective shows several statements imply at least three psychics have been paid on behalf of the local agencies involved. Lane County (Eugene, Oregon) previously paid two psychics to work with local sheriff department personnel on a missing person case --- a fact publicized in the Eugene Register Guard, the city newspaper. While there is certainly less direct payments going on --- there is some. And as to why the U.S. Department of Justice seems to keep soothsayers it has used protected is an interesting question several people are currently exploring. Lynchburg Police and other nearby Virginia communities have had three decades of police/psychic ties --- and they are extremely protective to answer questions. And clearly the U.S. Justice department Trustee's based in the same area are protective of at least one psychic who while declaring bankruptcy is also a soothsayer previously used and paid by the U.S. Justice Department according to previous testimony.

Last edited by Sherlock; 18th April 2010 at 08:40 PM.
Sherlock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 08:42 PM   #14
Sherlock
Muse
 
Sherlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 535
For more on the history of key psychic detectives, an update has been posted at http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/
Sherlock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2010, 09:39 PM   #15
alleracsum
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 70
Interesting stuff. Keep it coming.
alleracsum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 06:30 AM   #16
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,415
Originally Posted by amindformurder View Post
During a lengthy period of investigations and the use of subpoenas in early 2010, documentation provided directly from major bank depository accounts shows that four of the largest TV production companies creating psychic detective shows paid major fees to "psychic detective" talent.
Have to say I'm not sure I see the problem here. TV companies pay people for appearing in shows about them. In other news, the Pope is a bear.

I mean sure, it's disappointing that people can make false claims on TV, but that's hardly restricted to shows about psychics. Hell, we're in election season in the UK at the moment, and the party political broadcasts will each contain far more falsehoods than a whole year of psychic shows. But complaining about false claims is one thing. Pointing out that people get paid for appearing on TV is something else entirely, and doesn't really seem to achieve anything.
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 07:05 AM   #17
Bob Klase
Master Poster
 
Bob Klase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Tumblehome View Post
If only we could get them to show up at the studio without an implicit promise of payment.
That's another good idea. Don't call them- just write a check for their payment, leave it on a table in the production room and see if they show up.
Bob Klase is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 07:29 AM   #18
Ernie M
Critical Thinker
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Have to say I'm not sure I see the problem here. TV companies pay people for appearing in shows about them. In other news, the Pope is a bear.

[...] But complaining about false claims is one thing. Pointing out that people get paid for appearing on TV is something else entirely, and doesn't really seem to achieve anything.

FALSE ADVERTISING?
Having a "psychic" or "psychic detective" or other similarly-related titled person on a TV show is, in my opinion, akin to false advertising.

Since TV viewers may believe they are presented with factual and truthful information on these "psychic-type" shows, they could enter into future commercial transactions based on information that was false/fabricated, misleading, inaccurate, or intentionally withheld.

THEFT BY DECEPTION?
I'll also continue, that it's my opinion, that paid "psychics" and the TV shows or media coverage they are on, seem to be getting away with theft by deception.

So I feel it's important for amindformurder to point out that "psychic detectives" and the like, get paid for purported paranormal powers they can't prove they have. Laws and regulations have been enacted to help curb false, misleading, and deceptive advertising, so why shouldn't regulations apply to "psychics" and psychic-genre TV shows?
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 08:36 AM   #19
Just_Me
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 116
well said ernie m . it is not just the moneny that they get but what about "psychics" like silvia brown taking advantage of people at there most emotional and vunerable , for exmple telling parents their missing chidren are dead when they are alive and vice versa
Just_Me is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 01:56 PM   #20
RSLancastr
 
RSLancastr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 17,076
Originally Posted by amindformurder View Post
For more on the history of key psychic detectives, an update has been posted at http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/
I recently saw Renier on, I think it was, the Biography Channel, and thought of you.

I think it detailed her supposedly helping police to find a rapist, with such amazing information as "he lives near a movie theater." And that he had a scar on his knee.

Wow, that also describes me.
__________________
Who is "Kaz?" Read about her at www.StopKaz.com.

Curious about Sylvia Browne? Read about her at www.StopSylvia.com.

Ever wonder "What's the Harm?" with psychics, alternative medicine, etc?
RSLancastr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 02:07 PM   #21
ExMinister
RSL Acolyte
 
ExMinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,982
Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
FALSE ADVERTISING?
Having a "psychic" or "psychic detective" or other similarly-related titled person on a TV show is, in my opinion, akin to false advertising.

Since TV viewers may believe they are presented with factual and truthful information on these "psychic-type" shows, they could enter into future commercial transactions based on information that was false/fabricated, misleading, inaccurate, or intentionally withheld.

THEFT BY DECEPTION?
I'll also continue, that it's my opinion, that paid "psychics" and the TV shows or media coverage they are on, seem to be getting away with theft by deception.

So I feel it's important for amindformurder to point out that "psychic detectives" and the like, get paid for purported paranormal powers they can't prove they have. Laws and regulations have been enacted to help curb false, misleading, and deceptive advertising, so why shouldn't regulations apply to "psychics" and psychic-genre TV shows?

Also, a lot of psychics claim not to charge for helping the police in missing persons or murder cases. It is interesting to note that while they might not be charging the police or the families (though in certain cases, we know that in spite of what they claim, this isn't actually true), they are still making quite a bit of money for appearing on the television show.
__________________
www.stopsylvia.com
ExMinister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 03:05 PM   #22
Sherlock
Muse
 
Sherlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 535
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!

Last edited by Sherlock; 19th April 2010 at 03:16 PM.
Sherlock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 09:41 PM   #23
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,709
This is hardly unexpected, and she is not alone. Because by lying she gets publicity and thus it leads to opportunities for getting money. Sadly for her, the lies are being exposed.
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.