Psychic Detectives and "The Commentary"...same errors again and again and again and..

[Clancie]

Why? Why are the same inaccurate statements about psychic detectives made by some skeptics over and over and over?

Here it is, again, in this week's "Commentary":

Quote:

From Curtis Cameron, quoted by Randi

ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true.

This is not true. "Ever" is easily disputed. Psychic Phil Jordan, for one, is undeniably acknowledged by the police themselves as having been largely responsible for finding a missing child.

Why is this so...difficult? ...impossible? for some to understand?

If you want to say, "No psychic has ever solved a murder without police assistance"....well, that could well be true (although you'd better have researched it to make certain before saying it. ).

The statement, "No psychic has ever solved a missing person's case (using psychic ability)" can be argued pro/con based on the Jordan example (and others).

But the statement above, which Randi quoted so supportively, is patently false. Like it or not, psychics have been acknowledged (by police and family members) as having "helped" solve missing persons cases.

You can argue that, in your own opinion, police and familiy members are wrong, and that these psychics have not really "helped solve cases" at all--that the impression they did help is just a phony one. And you may even be right--Joe Nickells' book, for one, tries to argue this point.

But that is NOT the same thing as saying as a factual statement that "No psychic has ever helped solve a missing person's case".

Accurate statements are good....yes???? Inaccurate statements are bad....right?

Someday, one day, people (Randi, Cameron, Stoessel, whoever)...will make more effort to be accurate and factual in this discussion....

Or is that too much to hope for?

[Marian]

Clancie, which case are you refering to? The only case with specifics mentioned on that person's website is a 1975 case where a child was missing for 17 hours lost in the woods during a thunderstorm. Is that the case you're referring to?

[Clancie]

Quote:

Posted by Marian

Clancie, which case are you refering to? The only case with specifics mentioned on that person's website is a 1975 case where a child was missing for 17 hours lost in the woods during a thunderstorm. Is that the case you're referring to?

Yes.

[voidx]

Do we have any more in depth details of this occurance, or just the families the detective and Phil's own admission of what went on? To clarify Phil was actually studying at the police academy and later graduated. It was he himself that claimed it was his psychic powers that solved the case, however, he may simply have just had a different insight as to where the boy might be.

Here's a few other links regarding Phil:
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/psychicSleuths.htm

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=216620&rfi=6

Now, here is a transcript from an interview by CNN with Phil. Its at this link:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/29/lkl.00.html

Quote:

PHIL JORDAN, PSYCHIC: Well, the first I knew of the case, I had been on a trip down in Pennsylvania and I got back right about 7:00 that night, when we were having a very bad electric storm. And I ran from the garage to my apartment, and as I ran across the back yard, the landlady stood in the back door of the house and the fire siren was ringing and I was wondering what was going on. I thought maybe lightning had hit something. And so I asked what was going on, and she informed me that a little boy was missing up at Empire Lake.

GRACE: So detective, you had actually sounded a siren and called for volunteers to start looking for the boy until you finally had to call it off for the night, right?

RETSICKER: That's correct, yes.

GRACE: So, let me ask you this, Phil Jordan, what was your first initial feeling regarding the case and how did you help the family?

JORDAN: My first initial feeling was that the boy was alive, because I could see him lying down with his headresting on his arm, as if he were sleeping under a tree. And they had assumed he may have gotten in the lake and drowned, because he was wearing a swimsuit, last seen with a swim toy. He was barefoot so they thought maybe he had gone into the lake and drowned, but I felt he was very much alive. I felt he was sleeping under a tree. GRACE: Now, how did you lead them actually on the search through the forest?

JORDAN: Well, as night fell, I really -- and the father did contact me later on, and as night fell, I really felt that I couldn't go to the scene in the dark, because I might miss a clue. And so I took a piece of paper and drew a map of where I felt the little boy would be found. And I felt that I would arrive at the lake and there would be three overturns boats on the shore and across from that, there would be a building and I'd go in the lake or into the woods behind the building across the lake, and we would find an opening where there would be some stones gathered together, as if somebody was getting ready to build something. We continued on...

GRACE: Had you ever been to this lake before?

JORDAN: No, never, never. Even though it had been somewhat in my area, just not a place I had ever been.

Now. Notice several things. A siren had been sounded, and a call put out for volunteers to help look for the child. Phil Jordan apparently was not contacted specifically because of his psychic ability to assist in the investigation. A call for volunteers was put out, he showed up with this map he'd drawn and so they gave it a try. Also, he lived in the area, AND he talked to the father the night BEFORE he showed up with his "map". This leads to many potential mundane explanations. The father giving a potential description of the area around where his son disappeared...clues as to which ways the police had gone in search, etc. Who knows what went on during that conversation. So essentially volunteers are asked for, Phil lives in the area, Phil talks to the father the night before he shows up. Phil shows up the next day with a map basically telling the investigators to go look in a direction they had not previously looked in, and, they happen to find the boy.

More than enough reasons to believe this is entirely mundane, and a very clear indication that Phil Jordan was not actively hired, or sought by the investigators because of his "psychic" ability. Any other links or information on Phil that might clarify this? Or perhaps a better example?

[Marian]

Just some questions I have. First, do you know offhand if anyone has looked into this independantly (I wasn't able to find any information about this case online, other than what was posted on the psychic's own website). If so, could you point me in the right direction.

Second, and this is just a couple of personal examples. When I was in college I worked part of one summer as a cashier in a thirft shop. Without getting into too many extra details, a child went missing in the store (due to a parent not watching, and not caring, since she sent her very young children to report it, and didn't follow up for 45 minutes, when we told the oldest [who was around 7-8] that an adult has to make the report). Once it had been reported the entire store (which was quite large) went into a frenzy and police were called. One adult reported seeing a child dragged into a car (turns out that child was not related to this and was probably the child of the adult who dragged their kid in). Another adult said, "Check the car" meaning the car of the parent who's child was missing. That's where the child was. He had wandered out and found his car and crawled in. (And the mother took off before police arrived unfortunately, because she was really neglectful).

Now, the person who suggested we look in the car came up with that because when someone said they saw the child in the parking lot (and dragged into a car) they remembered as a mother that their child once had gotten lost and gone into her car. Had she claimed though that she recieved a 'psychic vision', would that be a case of a missing child resolved by 'psychic power'?

Obviously the possibilities were more limited with a store on a missing child, but 'in the car', wouldn't be something that would be first in my mind (nor was it at the time).

Another example. When I was about 5 years old, I lived in Georgia with my family and was lost in the woods one day, when the weather turned bad. I vividly remember this. Apparently my parents were on the verge of calling the police to search, but the neighbors assured them that their sons would find me. I'm not certain how long my parents had been 'yelling' for me beforehand. 4 boys made a beeline rather deep in these woods to exactly where I was. I had gotten completely turned around and was lost. They led me back, and I remember I was filthy (from falling into a REALLY small stream) and I think had some minor scrapes, and I was frightened and tired. One of the boys 'piggy-backed' me the rest of the way out because I was too tired to walk.

And of course my parents were relieved, and I was told THAT was why I didn't wander into the damned woods. Now that's just off my memory, which given the length of time, may not be accurate. But the basics are (I was lost, a storm started, it sucked). Now had the adults been praying and had the boys claimed 'Jesus led us to her', would that have been a case of a child found because of a 'miracle'?

The reason I list those two examples specifically is because there are probably numerous instances just like that, many much more serious, where a case is resolved not by psychic power, but merely by someone looking. Claiming after the fact (once successful) that it's attributable to something paranormal is less impressive than someone claiming beforehand that they absolutely can/will do X, and it's because of something paranormal. See the difference? (I probably could have made a MUCH shorter analogy though). Plus, even if they do claim it, and do succeed in those cases...does it automatically make it 'paranormal', or can another alternative explanation apply? Obviously the two examples I gave were NOT paranormal, but what if beforehand they said it was, then performed as they did. Would that make it paranormal? Well that's a trick question, because we know for sure in those two cases that it wasn't.

I'm obviously interested in looking more into this specific case, because it is my understanding that no case has ever been resolved based solely on 'psychic' information (information that they did not or could not have gotten from another very real source). And quite a bit of harm gets done with paranormal claims.

But what I find interesting is that this psychic, who says on his website that he was 'deputized' specifically to work as a psychic with a New York police department (though I assume not NYPD since he doesn't say 'the' NYPD, but a New York police dept) why he doesn't have numerous more examples than one case of a child missing 17 hours during a thunderstorm in 1975? Which also leads me to wonder if he said he knew where the child was psychically, or claimed AFTER he located the child that he had found the child 'psychically'. There would be in my mind, a difference. Especially when many things happen which are merely coincidental. In other words, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so what are the specific circumstances surrounding the case that would make it extraordinary.

It certainly is presented as extraordinary. 200 searchers, a missing child lost in the woods during a thunder storm, he walks in points to a spot... from his website I quote:

Quote:

Within one hour after beginning his search, Phil successfully led a search team to the frightened little boy who had been missing for 17 hours. Phil used a map he envisioned the night before, and his mental capabilities to locate Tommy Kennedy, safe and alive, after two hundred searchers were unsuccessful in their attempts. Phil totally credits the event of August 4, 1975 to his psychic ability.

You said the police state he is 'largely responsible', yet if his claim is absolutely 100% true, wouldn't it be "totally responsible"? Or did he have information from the police?

Anyway, if I look only at that one case, the only information I have is from the guy's website. Are there other sources of information than the psychic himself that make the same claims, and can support those claims (like other police officers stating that they hadn't told him anything about the case, etc.)?

If no one has looked into it, I have enough free time that I'd have enough interest in poking around to see what I can dig up. But I'd be surprised if no one had looked into it already (though I can't find any information via google). So I'd be interested in seeing what other information is out there on this.

Just based on his claim, I'm still skeptical (of course ), but will grant that the claim that he was responsible for finding a missing child using 'psychic' powers certainly bears looking into.

[Nigel]

Quote:

From Marian
If no one has looked into it, I have enough free time that I'd have enough interest in poking around to see what I can dig up.

Go for it Marian. Part of my problem is I don't have the time to devote to research like this (but I do have the desire). (I often post during my workday - my job is pretty routine.) So the upshot is I'm interested in what you can find out.

[voidx]

I did a google for Phil Jordan & police I think to find the links I did. There may have been more, but after reading the CNN interview I wasn't very motivated to do so. He lived in the area, he talked to the father, he perhaps had the benefit of basically knowing where the police had ALREADY looked. This just has mundane written all over it to me.

Now it mentions that he was deputized shortly after this incident(happened in 1975) and that he graduated from the police academy in 1976, so its a tad unclear if he was in the police academy, before/during, or after this incident. Why I think this is important is because he may have already been learning investigative techniques and this, rather than psychic ability is what "contributed" to the investigation.

[chrisberez]

Quote:

Originally posted by Marian
Just some questions I have. First, do you know offhand if anyone has looked into this independantly (I wasn't able to find any information about this case online, other than what was posted on the psychic's own website). If so, could you point me in the right direction.

Marian's excellent post pretty much said it all, and there's really nothing I can add. Obviously, if there was really indisputable evidence of psychic's solving a case, it should be out there, easy to find. It should be unquestionable, and able to be replicated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wandering around the woods, with knowledge gained a posteriori or after all the facts of a case are known. Like the others in this thread, I am not impressed.

[CurtC]

Curtis Cameron checking in here. Just because "psychics have been acknowledged (by police and family members) as having 'helped' solve missing persons cases," this does not negate the statement that "no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability)."

Do you see the difference? A person who calls himself a psychic can always investigate like everyone else, using regular old shoe leather, and help solve a case. I said that no psychic has ever helped using psychic ability, and I stand by that statement.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Did you know that Phil Jordan was studying at the police academy and later graduated?

Did you know that he was the one vouching for his psychic abilities?

If either answer is a yes, didn't that ring a bell somewhere?

If either answer is a no, can we agree that you did not look into this case, but accepted what you read?

And...sorry, I really hate to ask, because it might put you in a bad light:

Why do your examples of psychic achievements always turn out mundane after the most cursory investigations?

[Ceinwyn]

Clancie:

Give me one example where a psychic actually found a missing person, in that the person was missing or dead and the psychic found that person.

No help from the police, no clues from the newspaper. Somebody just called up and said "there's a dead person right here, they told me so." and they found them.

[coalesce]

Perhaps by "helped," the psychics mean: "we helped the police by having them investigate every other possible scenario except for the one that really happened."

Michael

[Pantastic]

Quote:

Originally posted by coalesce
Perhaps by "helped," the psychics mean: "we helped the police by having them investigate every other possible scenario except for the one that really happened."

Michael

Or, 20 psychics came out of the woodwork and offered their ideas, and when one of them hit lucky, they were remembered while the others were forgotten. After all, if 1000 monkeys working for long enough would type out the complete works of Shakespeare, then 1000 misguided, money grabbing, egotistical psychics are gonna hit lucky once in a while, right?

[Clancie]

Quote:

Posted by Curtis Cameron

Curtis Cameron checking in here. Just because "psychics have been acknowledged (by police and family members) as having 'helped' solve missing persons cases," this does not negate the statement that "no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability)."

Do you see the difference? A person who calls himself a psychic can always investigate like everyone else, using regular old shoe leather, and help solve a case. I said that no psychic has ever helped using psychic ability, and I stand by that statement.

Hi Curtis. I wondered if the person Randi quoted participated at this board.

And, fyi, no...if you read the details of the Phil Jordan case, he did not "investigate like everyone else". Without going to the location, he drew a map which the police searchers used to find the missing child. Like it or not, every reliable source (including the police detective in charge of the case) indicates that this psychic did help the police find the missing five year old who was lost near Empire Lake. And he is credited by the police and the boy's family for doing so.

Quote:

Posted by Chris Berez

Obviously, if there was really indisputable evidence of psychic's solving a case, it should be out there, easy to find. It should be unquestionable, and able to be replicated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wandering around the woods, with knowledge gained a posteriori or after all the facts of a case are known. Like the others in this thread, I am not impressed.

Quote:

Posted by buki

Clancie, Give me one example where a psychic actually found a missing person, in that the person was missing or dead and the psychic found that person.

No help from the police, no clues from the newspaper. Somebody just called up and said "there's a dead person right here, they told me so." and they found them.

Quote:

Posted by coelesce

Perhaps by "helped," the psychics mean: "we helped the police by having them investigate every other possible scenario except for the one that really happened."

Quote:

Posted by Phantastic

Or, 20 psychics came out of the woodwork and offered their ideas, and when one of them hit lucky, they were remembered while the others were forgotten. After all, if 1000 monkeys working for long enough would type out the complete works of Shakespeare, then 1000 misguided, money grabbing, egotistical psychics are gonna hit lucky once in a while, right?

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Clancie
And, fyi, no...if you read the details of the Phil Jordan case, he did not "investigate like everyone else". Without going to the location, he drew a map which the police searchers used to find the missing child. Like it or not, every reliable source (including the police detective in charge of the case) indicates that this psychic did help the police find the missing five year old who was lost near Empire Lake. And he is credited by the police and the boy's family for doing so.

But the point that you don't address is: Did he draw the map using his psychic abilities? If so, how do you know? Because he said so?

Quote:

Originally posted by Clancie

Please don't be so arrogant, when people take the time to reply to you. You ask for mundane explanations, yet all you can do is roll your eyes.

[Clancie]

voidx,

Here's what the detective himself said, from the CNN link...

Quote:

From Cnn

CNN Interview with Phil Jordan and Det. Dave Retsicker

PHIL JORDAN: Well, as night fell, I really -- and the father did contact me later on, and as night fell, I really felt that I couldn't go to the scene in the dark, because I might miss a clue. And so I took a piece of paper and drew a map of where I felt the little boy would be found.

And I felt that I would arrive at the lake and there would be three overturns boats on the shore and across from that, there would be a building and I'd go in the lake or into the woods behind the building across the lake, and we would find an opening where there would be some stones gathered together, as if somebody was getting ready to build something. We continued on...

GRACE: Had you ever been to this lake before?

JORDAN: No, never, never. Even though it had been somewhat in my area, just not a place I had ever been.

GRACE: Well detective, when he shows up then with this map he's drawn during the night, what did you make of it?

DAVE RETSICKER, RETIRED DETECTIVE:

RETSICKER: Well, I was surprised at the accuracy of it as far as around the lake and the three boats that were overturned on the shore, and the building that was actually a wall tent, but it was exactly where he had placed it on his map.

....within a very short period of time, actually, we had spent well over 12 hours with a couple hundred searchers without success, and it was actually less than an hour before Phil led us right to the boy.

[CFLarsen]

Because he said so.

You are incredibly gullible.

[Clancie]

Quote:

Posted by marian
You said the police state he is 'largely responsible', yet if his claim is absolutely 100% true, wouldn't it be "totally responsible"? Or did he have information from the police?

The police with over 100 searchers had looked for many hours without success. Jordan drew his map at home and then gave it to the detective. The "largely responsible" is -my- characterization, simply because they used Jordan's map to find the little boy.

Quote:

Posted by marian

Just some questions I have. First, do you know offhand if anyone has looked into this independantly (I wasn't able to find any information about this case online, other than what was posted on the psychic's own website). If so, could you point me in the right direction.

Well, there are numerous newspaper articles and, of course, the profile of the case, including interviews, on Court TV's "Psychic Detectives".

But I think the source that would interest you the most is the one I mentioned earlier, Joe Nickell's anthology, Psychic Sleuths (Nickell, of course, being a prominent paranormal debunker). You might also be interested in the more favorable account in The Blue Sense (Lyons and Truzzi), (which btw, I don't have either).

However, since I do have Nickell's book, I will summarize the main debunking points here:

Quote:

Here is my brief summary of the critique in, "The Mythologized Psychic Detective: Phil Jordan", Ch. 8, by Kenneth Feder and Michael Alan Park

• The story of Phil Jordan finding five year old Tommy Kennedy has become embellished through the years to mythic proportions
  
• The actual chain of events should be regarded as "unrecoverable, untestable, and ultimately unknowable."
  
• There are inconsistencies in the press accounts, especially those written many years after the fact, including Jordan's own
  
• There were no scientific controls!
  
• The police and searchers credited Jordan's map for leading them to the boy in the dense forest. But how accurate was the map really?
  
• Jordan says he'd never been to the lake before, but is that really true? Had he ever seen an aerial photo? A map of the lake?
  
• Did one of the people (who had already been unsuccessfully looking for Tommy for hours) tip off Jordan to information that let him draw the map of the -correct- location?

My comment?

Only one. I find it quite telling, that in a chapter where the authors have time to describe the Talking Moose on their Mac and mention the (debunked) idea that Neanderthals had ESP....they never, ever bothered to contact not only Jordan himself, but also Dave Retsicker, the police detective who was in charge of the search.

[Marian]

Quote:

PHIL JORDAN: Well, as night fell, I really -- and the father did contact me later on, and as night fell, I really felt that I couldn't go to the scene in the dark, because I might miss a clue.

Was he there as a 'psychic' or as someone who wanted to be a police officer, or in some other capacity similar to that, or as a 'concerned citizen'.

From that statement it sounds like he had some offical capacity other than 'psychic'. And why would he need clues if he could go directly to the child? Yes, I know the 'map' happens later. However if he was already planning to go to the area, but it was too dark to look for clues...how did he know where the area was? Had he already seen a map of the area? Did he live near there? If so, wouldn't it be practically impossible NOT to have previously seen a map, and/or heard various descriptions of the area? Even if he was from out of town and was involved in the case before making his map, wouldn't it be likely that he had already heard specific details of the case, since he planned to go 'look for clues' BEFORE experiencing any psychic visions?

He's never been to the area and he can draw a map. Okay he was already involved in the case, and couldn't go there because it was dark. And he's still never seen a map of it? Or overheard other people describing the ongoing search and various areas being covered. Areas of interest? I just find that unbelievably unlikely. I was in San Diego during a time when Danielle Van Damm was missing, just based off news reports (which were on constantly) I could have told you MANY details of the case, even though I was unfamiliar with the area. This was at the point when the parents were being destroyed in the media because they smoked pot and were swingers. Listening to reports, I told my husband "What do you bet someone in the neighborhood did it?". He can verify that statement before any reports of neighbor suspects were out, and the media was focusing on family. Am I psychic? Noooo, I assure you I'm not. It was a guess based on limited information, and one that happened to be right. Who can gain entrance to a house, know the layout, know the children and get in and out without being 'noticed' most easily...assuming the parents didn't do it. And I could have just as easily been wrong, but because I was right, I remember it. I also believed at one point that the missing Ramsey child was most likely murdered by her parents, and now I no longer believe that just based on various evidence I've seen. But many people who've had a change of heart will 'forget' they ever believed the parents guilty. And in my 'prediction' I might have even said something like 'if the parents didn't do it, I'll bet it's X'. I may have offered various theories. My husband and I talked about it briefly several times as it was on the news heavily while we were down there. But all *I* honestly remember is thinking 'neighbor', because it was a neighbor. I also was shocked when they found Elizabeth Smart alive, as were most people. Yet I guarentee you there were people who never gave up hope. And they'll remember that they always said she was alive (even if at times they may have thought otherwise).

And that's from someone attempting to be 100% honest (though you have to take my word for it heh) and who has absolutely no psychic powers.

Also we come back to a very important issue. The claims of the lead detective in the case. I'll explain why IMO relying on that opinion is a fallacy.

First, this is a case of a missing child with no foul play suspected. That's extremely important. The entire focus on the case then is finding this missing child (and there are 3 areas of 'lets hurry' 1) weather problems - kid needs to be found quickly due to 'bad weather' 2) age of the minor - a 5 year old child is presumed to be only very minimally capable of caring for itself 3) the clock is ticking, every second that goes by is another second that this child is in very real danger, and people are watching.

The lead officer in the case would be coordinating a metric f*ckton of stuff. I saw over 200 searchers touted on his website. Later (I believe on CNN) it was stated to be 'over 100'. Which was it? It was obviously 'a lot'. With 17 hours missing, I'll bet the majority of searchers showed up the next day after media reports. Otherwise, who's searching? Everyone who knows the family and can go look in the area. The police departments own search team (if they even had one, which is unknown) and what police can be spared. It's not going to be that heavy of a search, until the following day. Not in 1975, unless that family happened to have NUMEROUS relatives all in the area.

And we know the child was missing for a total of 17 hours, and was missing overnight. Depending on the time of year, 8-ish-10+ hours of that time was total darkness, when searching did not/could not take place (except perhaps in a very limited fashion).

So figure whatever happens, the majority of searchers show up the next day. Which is when this 'psychic' has his 'map'. And he says he finds the child after an hour of searching. So we have the child missing the day before for hours in the evening before the search is called off due to darkness, and then found an hour after it resumes the next day.

Does this start to get less impressive to you?

Police officers are not the best judges of anything psychic. Period. Why? Because often they don't dig too deep into a case, despite what you see on television. And what they do examine, they examine in very specific and predictible ways. If Jimmy knows where the body is, then odds are, Jimmy put that body there. If he didn't, he knows who did. In this case we don't have a dead child, or any suspicion of foul play. Therefore the evidence isn't being closely looked at. If the child had been found strangled, and this 'psychic' had information he couldn't have rationally had...he'd be prime suspect numero uno.

Again, I stress that foul play wasn't suspected. That's important. Why? Because as soon as the child is found, the case is resolved. No additional investigation is done, because the case is resovled and ended. And everyone is happy with the outcome.

Now, lets get back to responsibility. I have seen in many cases, where the party who was lucky enough to find the evidence (through mundane means) is touted for breaking the case. Or a party who comes forward with information (gained by mundane means) is touted as 'breaking the case'. However, this ignores the work of numerous other people. That's okay, most of those people don't expect (or often want) recognition. While that evidence may be the 'key piece', it wouldn't or couldn't have resolved the case without all the other work being done. I think we all know that though.

Now how many cases do you think are resolved through a break like that? I don't have hard statistical data unfortunately. I do know that every single police officer *I* know will say that most cases are resolved because of such breaks. You'll hear phrases like 'if criminals were smart, I'd be out of a job'. You can go through numerous case files and just see instances of 'dumb luck', though it's not quite dumb, and people make their own luck. I'll give two famous examples.

The Oklahoma City Bombing. How was Tim McVey captured?

He was pulled over by a police officer and detained for an unrelated offense. While in custody, (I'm going purely off memory, so some details may be inaccurate) but I believe the description came through, and so they continued to hold him on the unrelated charge. He was captured through 'dumb luck'.

The abduction and murder of Polly Klaus. Mark Chapman slips through their fingers.

Police were called on a suspicious vehicle or prowler call (I don't remember which). They found Mark Chapman. They also found his behavior and numerous other things REALLY suspicious. Unfortunately the abduction wasn't widely broadcasted, so they didn't have the information on the kidnapping. And they had to let him go. There will always be speculation as to whether or not Polly was alive at that time. There were failures at other levels, and some things changed as a result. However the police who briefly questioned and released him had followed all possible procedures.

That's just two cases where a suspect was quickly in police custody. One case they held the suspect, in the other...they didn't. Neither are extraordinary, other than with the Polly Klaus case there will always be the question of 'what if'. However you can find innumerable cases just like that.

So just 'armchairing' it, without getting any additional information than what is on this thread, so far it seems less and less impressive. The lead detective's opinions aren't valuable, because he didn't investigate the claim. Once the case was resolved, it was resolved. Had the child been murdered, and the psychic been investigated for how he could have possibly had that information, we'd have more valuable information obviously. However as far as I know, he didn't investigate it personally, and there would be absolutely no reason to investigate it professionally.

And police officers in their private persons hold many um interesting viewpoints. Some are racists, and that's a sad fact of life. Does it effect their work, is the big question. Some are religious. Some believe in psychics. Some believe in the power of prayer. I really don't care what they believe as a private person, as long as it doesn't interfere with their work. If you had a police officer who believed that prayer and prayer alone would resolve cases, even in this country which is predominately Christian, he or she would be out of a job. Even in Cobb County, Georgia.

However if they do their damn job, and then credit Jesus or God as 'helping' with the case, most people will accept that claim. It's a claim made in the Elizabeth Smart abduction. The family strongly believes that God and prayer helped see their daughter safely home. However if you listen to the other side, the guy who kidnapped her claims it was God's will that she become his 'wife'. I think more people are inclined to believe God saved her, rather than God was behind her abduction. Still we can point to a lot of real police work that went into finding her, and sadly many false avenues. It was another case broken by someone calling in and saying 'I think I just saw her...'.

I don't know enough about this specific case (of the little boy lost in the woods in 1975) to be able to say, this is how it was really solved; whether it be psychic or mundane. Yet what little I do know raises many questions. I would think the most important questions would be:

• What specifically was his involvement in the case?
• What information did he have, or have access to prior to making his map?
• At which point did he claim his information was due to 'psychic' power?
• What investigation, if any, was done at the time to verify his claims? (Assuming they were even made then).
• What are the actual facts surrounding the case? (As substantiated by evidence compiled at the time, as to number of searchers, what was being done, etc. Not 30 year old memory.
• Is this his best proof? If he has worked numerous times as a 'psychic' with the police, where are all the other cases he resolved by 'psychic powers'.

[Clancie]

marian,

Have you read the CNN transcript? I think it will answer some of your questions--for starters, at least fill in some of the gaps in the details.

[Marian]

Quote:

Originally posted by Clancie
marian,

Have you read the CNN transcript? I think it will answer some of your questions--for starters, at least fill in some of the gaps in the details.

No I hadn't, I had followed another link which went elsewhere. Found the right link.

So far it answers: father called in Phil Jordan (the 'psychic'). The lead detective states that he had known him for years, but hadn't thought to call him. I'll assume he was contacted because he was already stating he was a psychic. (Otherwise why contact him specifically, etc.)

Details of the case already known to the psychic (per his account on CNN): That the boy went missing near a lake. That the boy was wearing a bathing suit. That one theory was that the boy had drowned in the lake.

Now...again I have no idea, so this is just speculation, but if someone is offering an account to someone where they've gotten that information, it wouldn't be unusual for them to offer more details. Such as 'We were at the lake, there were no boats out that day, because of the weather, he was playing near some overturned boats, we told him to stay close by, we've checked the shack near shore, he's not there. I don't think he would have gone into the water because (insert whatever, not a good swimmer, wouldn't disobey, whatever). If you assume the child is alive...then you don't have the kid in the lake. Where else would the kid be, and you can reasonably assume that the area around where he was...was searched. I mean...that pretty clearly leaves the woods...if you're saying the kid is alive.

Quote:

GRACE: Had you ever been to this lake before?

JORDAN: No, never, never. Even though it had been somewhat in my area, just not a place I had ever been.

Again, being as it's in his area...even if he's never been there he would have an idea of the area from other maps he has seen, people he's known that go there, as well as whatever accounts he heard prior to making the map. And he had talked to at least the father prior to making his map.

There are places I've never been to in California, but I have friends that go there, and I could probably draw up a pretty decent map. I can practically visualize this location, and I've never been there. I don't know how accurate his map was even.

And that's assuming he's being 100% honest. If we don't assume that, then he had ample opportunity to dishonestly make a map, because he wasn't under observation.

Quote:

GRACE: Well detective, when he shows up then with this map he's drawn during the night, what did you make of it?

RETSICKER: Well, I was surprised at the accuracy of it as far as around the lake and the three boats that were overturned on the shore, and the building that was actually a wall tent, but it was exactly where he had placed it on his map.

Again, there's a couple possibilities:

1) He's dishonest and had inside information/had been there before/had his own maps of the area along with descriptions people offered then or previously. No proof of that, but possible. Let's ignore that for the moment, because we can't prove that. (And it would be difficult to prove 30 years later anyway).

2) How accurate is the map? Were there only 3 overturned boats and he drew 3 overturned boats? Okay if so, once again...was he told that information by the family in their descriptions? Or by someone on the police force? The building location isn't unusual, because again, I would assume that in giving details of the case, the person recounting it (especially a relative) would say, we've looked here, I know he wouldn't have gone into the water (because if he's in the water...he's dead) no boats are out...he's not under the boats (I'd look under an overturned boat for a 5 year old, that's common sense.) Etc.

Did he get information that way? Again I have no idea, but it's a possibility.

Quote:

RETSICKER: Well, very short period of time, actually, we had spent well over 12 hours with a couple hundred searchers without success, and it was actually less than an hour before Phil led us right to the boy.

Now...this again is weird. According to Phil Jordan's website the totality of time the boy was lost was 17 hours. The boy was missing overnight (too dark to look). The boy was found the next day (I can reach this conclusion because it was too dark to look at one point, and now he can look, so it is daytime). And he finds the boy in an hour (or less...less than an hour, but obviously it's close to an hour, because they don't say in less than 30 minutes.)

Number of searchers? 100? 200? more? Unknown, other than 'lots'. 12 hours searching? Really? Were they searching at night? Sure, I'm sure they were doing limited searching at night...but night searches aren't that effective. You're still going to do them when you have a missing kid. But I'd be surprised if 200 people were out there with flashlights all actively searching all night. Possible, but I wouldn't think so.

So what's the actual time table of the daylight search? Again...this starts to sound unimpressive.

Quote:

GRACE: Well in fact, it was going in a different direction that you all had initially presumed the boy went.

"It" being the map (just to clarify). Again what information Phil Jordan had prior to the map is uncertain (and would be IMO even if he disclosed all information he believes he had, because we'd be going by his account (which may or may not be honest) and assuming he IS honest, his memory, which may or may not be accurate. :\

Now, it seems to me that it's being presented as 'impressive' that his map was the opposite of where they had been searching. Like that was not common sense, and hence more of a 'Ooooo'.

But I don't think so, again...if you say 'lake' it's a dead kid. If you say 'woods' which is around the lake, you have a live kid. Not that impressive a guess, given the rapid time frame. If the search had gone on for a week, guessing live and being right would be a helluvalot more impressive for instance.

Now if you know that searchers have combed a specific area (which we do not know if he knew) then suggesting an opposite area that hasn't been discluded seems less 'Oooo' and more 'well, duh'.

All of this hinges on what Phil Jordon knew, or didn't know at the time. And much of that could never be proven 30 years later. (Or even a year later). The family I guarentee you was distraught. I'd be shocked if they could really remember the details of what they specifically did or did not tell Mr. Jordan. People dispute what they said or didn't say in an argument 5 minutes after it happened, let alone in a more traumatic situation of a missing kid. Without recording, even if the father were to make claims he told him all the info...it's inaccurate. It's guarenteed inaccurate.

I can toss up a lot of 'potentials', but without knowing what information he had access to, it's really impossible to determine. And there's really no way of knowing what he did or didn't have access to, without relying on inaccurate information.

So we're back at the question: Was this a case solved solely by psychic means? And I would have to say 'no'.

Now I just have to defend why I say 'no', based on what little information I have (CNN interview, and Phil Jordan's site).

Okay first off, I have never seen the map he drew, and have never seen the area, and only know the information provided by this thread, CNN article and Phil Jordan's website. (Which you have to take on faith that I'm being honest. Which one may or may not do, being skeptical after all is good ;D) but I'm being completely honest. I'll draw a map knowing only that information. If someone has the Jordan map you can compare it for accuracy. And I'm mouse drawing it in MSpaint so mock me not!







Now that's a map that took me well under a minute to draw in paint, and I'm missing one vital piece of information. I don't know which way the searchers were looking. I know there are 3 boats (poorly drawn), I know there's a building (which turned out to be a tent), and I've only drawn one part of the lake, the part where the child was.

Let's say that from that perspective, the building isn't north, but rather south of the boats. No problem, flip it upside down.

Now if I knew which direction they had already been looking, putting an "X" in the area where they had not been looking is much easier. And the map is still extremely vague. How far can a 5 year old in bare feet and only swimming trunks go?

Not THAT far.

Anyway, I'm still less impressed, but it looks less likely that it was resolved purely on psychic imput. The searchers would have begun searching in all directions (and they would have had people looking into the lake I would presume) by the next day. Assuming the police detective is completely honest (and he is probably the person I'd lend most credence to as far as being honest) he only knows what he personally did or did not tell Phil Jordan. He doesn't know what information the family may or may not have told him. Or any others involved for that matter. And the length of time, and scope of the search has been extremely vague and at times contradictory.

Going back to a previous example I posted, of the child lost in the thrift store, frankly 'car' seems a better guess than 'the woods'...depending on the accuracy of the map. And the map could not have been that detailed as to the wooded area, because it took an hour to locate the child. (Or just under an hour). And we don't know where in the woods the child was found, or the scope of that search. (I would be more impressed if for example, it was a 50 minute beeline walk exactly to where the child was, and a 50 minute walk back to the lake).

Yet I suspect were that the case, that information would also be offered. So what we have is a search, comprised of an unknown number of people, looking in a general area the opposite direction of where the previous search had taken place.

That's pretty much police procedure. A barefoot child of 5 is presumed to only be able to go so far under his own power. You have a spot from which they started, and a timeline. And you know that a 5 year old child is unlikely to walk barefoot over the entire span of time, in a straight line away from the starting point. It's far more likely that the child eventually stops and stays in a very specific area, if they even continue walking at all after a certain point. That narrows down the search area considerably.

Anyway, while I'd be inclined to say no, because it hasn't been proven...I certainly can't disprove it either. I can offer what seems to me to be more rational possibilities...and come up with a slew of questions, but most of those questions cannot be answered reasonably.

We will never know for certain what information he had or did not have prior to the drawing of the map. That alone makes it suspect.

Sooooo, where from there? Well, he claims he resolved this case with 'psychic' powers. If this case had just happened, and somehow it was up to me to research it, I know that I would then question how those powers work? In other words, can they work on older cases? (Even in 1975 they had 'cold cases'). Can they work on cases that are already resolved? (That would be easy to test). Assume both are no.

Okay, then I'd start by heavily controlling conditions on subsequent cases, to test it. He claims that he worked with the police department after that case, yet he seems to tout that case as his most successful case. (I mean otherwise we'd hear of an even more astounding case as well, if he had hundreds of such).

Instead, even though he states he was deputized in order to work with a police department as a psychic (which I don't know if that's accurate, but as easy as that would be to verify, I'll assume it is...because if he's lying about that he's stupid) where are the other amazing cases? In those cases he wouldn't have to wait for a terrified family to call HIM in, the police are supposidly working directly with him. (And I will assume he has even greater access to evidence in those cases to boot).

I find it additionally suspect that he's not touting additional cases, but simply this one. And it's not a case where it can be proven (at least in my opinion because you cannot demonstrate what information he did or did not have access to) that his performance was based purely on 'psychic' information.

Just my opinion anyhoo.

[lofgoernost]

Nice post, Marian. Here and here are a couple links to other threads about this episode of LKL, if you're interested.

Plus, cool drawing.

[Loki]

Clancie,

Seems to me this is simply a case of "reading out of context". THe quite you've given is :

Quote:

ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true.

Seems clear from the context that what is meant here is

"ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually been proven to have helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true."

You seem to be arguing that the actual quote is trying to say :

"ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually been acknowledged to have helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true."

This came up a few weeks ago with the Phil Jordan story - it's simply an unsubstantiated anecdote. The fact that there many be one (or more) police officers involved in the telling of this anecdote doesn't make it a factual. There is NO corroborating evidence of any kind here - it's all simply memory and hearsay.

[voidx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Clancie
voidx,

Here's what the detective himself said, from the CNN link...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Cnn

CNN Interview with Phil Jordan and Det. Dave Retsicker

PHIL JORDAN: Well, as night fell, I really -- and the father did contact me later on, and as night fell, I really felt that I couldn't go to the scene in the dark, because I might miss a clue. And so I took a piece of paper and drew a map of where I felt the little boy would be found.

And I felt that I would arrive at the lake and there would be three overturns boats on the shore and across from that, there would be a building and I'd go in the lake or into the woods behind the building across the lake, and we would find an opening where there would be some stones gathered together, as if somebody was getting ready to build something. We continued on...

GRACE: Had you ever been to this lake before?

JORDAN: No, never, never. Even though it had been somewhat in my area, just not a place I had ever been.

GRACE: Well detective, when he shows up then with this map he's drawn during the night, what did you make of it?

DAVE RETSICKER, RETIRED DETECTIVE:

RETSICKER: Well, I was surprised at the accuracy of it as far as around the lake and the three boats that were overturned on the shore, and the building that was actually a wall tent, but it was exactly where he had placed it on his map.

....within a very short period of time, actually, we had spent well over 12 hours with a couple hundred searchers without success, and it was actually less than an hour before Phil led us right to the boy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhhh, I gave the link for the CNN interview and read it in entirety, so yes I know it said that. Now...what is it I'm supposed to be looking for in this piece of text? Any chance of you answering any of my above quoted concerns? I had a whole post of text. Any of it cause you to pause and consider the authenticity of Mr. Jordan's claim? In fact my post included comments on the information re-quoted by you. What do you think of what I said?

[voidx]

Just to make it easier:

Jordan's account of what happened when goes like this:

- Comes home, hears a siren on, talks to neighbour, finds out a boy is missing in the woods.

- The police have put out an announcement asking for volunteers to merely help in search parties for the boy

- How and when we don't know, but the father gets in touch with Jordan, or possibly vice versa, they have a conversation of which we know nothing about. Jordan just brushes it aside and doesn't seem to comment on what was said

- Jordan draws a map of where he thinks the boy is due to "psychic" powers.

- Jordan shows up the next day. Not because he was sought by investigators, but because he'd talked to the father, who may have wanted him to help, and a general call for volunteers had been put out

- The investigator says he's impressed by the detail of the map (the map we've not seen and I'm sure is lost, funny as it would be very convincing proof of his powers if it was indeed so accurate)

- Within the hour they find the boy supposedly with help of Jordan's map

Now the first thing is obviously that they maybe retro-actively fitting just how accurate and great Jordan's map was after it was successful at finding the boy. Give it to someone not from the area and see if this map makes any sense to them. Not having the map to see who knows. No offense to the county sheriff or whatever, but his word alone that the map was detailed and great is not authoritative for me not having seen it myself.

So the map that was drawn after having talked to the father of the missing boy, and living in the area and potentially having some idea of what area's had already been searched...we can safely conclude that this map was acquired by "psychic" means? I have some doubts about this. How about you Clancie, does anything about Jordan's story, or the details of the case give you pause about the "psychic" source of the map? Or are you simply grasping it as an example to support your point?

[Ceinwyn]

Marian:

Excellent posts and critical assessment. Much better than some lame "rolleyes" icon.

Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by lofgoernost
Plus, cool drawing.

I disagree. The drawing is far, far too specific. There are simply not enough loopholes for this to be a real RV drawing!

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen

, yet all you can do is roll your eyes.

You mean something like what you did here:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/show...265#1870362265

?

[UnTrickaBLe]

Clancie, you come on here badmouthing skeptics because they say there is no evidence that any "psychic" ever solved a crime using "psychic powers." But the positive "evidence" you offered on this thread has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Clancie, do you consider yourself a critical thinker, or are you just here to piss off the critical thinkers?

Please read this....

CSICOP: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking

Finished? Okay. Now, let's look at one of the basic principles of critical, scientific thinking: Replicability

Quote:

The rule of replicability provides a safeguard against the possibility of error, fraud, or coincidence. A single experimental result is never adequate in and of itself, whether the experiment concerns the production of nuclear fusion or the existence of telepathic ability. Any experiment, no matter how carefully designed and executed, is always subject to the possibility of implicit bias or undetected error. The rule of replicability, which requires independent observers to follow the same procedures and to achieve the same results, is an effective way of correcting bias or error, even if the bias or error remains permanently unrecognized.

If "psychics" could actually solve crimes, they would do so under controlled scientific observation and humiliate all skeptics. But of course, that has never happened. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support the existence of "psychic" powers.

Do you admit, Clancie, that by the standards of critical and scientific thinking, you have no evidence of any "psychic powers" ever solving a crime?

Yes or No? If you say you do have the evidence, produce it now.

[Thomas]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I disagree. The drawing is far, far too specific. There are simply not enough loopholes for this to be a real RV drawing!

Indeed, an authentic RV map is probably more like this:

[The Mighty Thor]

I vote Marian as Best Newbie in a long time -- thorough, incisive, perspicacious, and more than a match for the slippery and evasive Clancie.

Remember that, apart from talking to the father, the 'psychic' could have gotten all sorts of information about where had already been searched via phone calls to friends, CB radio, and Radio Scanner.

Also, he would surely have a map of 'his area'.

Why did he leave the kid out all night when he could have located him right away, dark or no dark?

What 'clues' did he need daylight for?

Where is the map he drew?

Why has he never found other missing kids with this amazing power?

The whole thing stinks, as does Clancie's support of these self-serving kooks.

Where has Clancie gone, anyway -- yet another dropped thread when faced with simple common sense and critical exposure?

[Clancie]

Quote:

Posted by Untrickable

Clancie, you come on here badmouthing skeptics because they say there is no evidence that any "psychic" ever solved a crime using "psychic powers." But the positive "evidence" you offered on this thread has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Clancie, do you consider yourself a critical thinker, or are you just here to piss off the critical thinkers?

Please read this....

CSICOP: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking

Finished? Okay. Now, let's look at one of the basic principles of critical, scientific thinking: Replicability

...If "psychics" could actually solve crimes, they would do so under controlled scientific observation and humiliate all skeptics. But of course, that has never happened. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support the existence of "psychic" powers.

Do you admit, Clancie, that by the standards of critical and scientific thinking, you have no evidence of any "psychic powers" ever solving a crime?

Yes or No? If you say you do have the evidence, produce it now.

In answer to your first part, some "critical thinkers" elevate dogma and their ignorance of specific detail of an event to an art form.

In answer to the second part, when it comes specifically to the details of the Jordan case, Untrickable, what, to you, would constitute the "evidence" that Jordan, a psychic, did in fact help police find Tommy, apparently by psychic means?

What "evidence" is it, specifically, that you are looking for?

(Back later, re: voidx, loki, marian...)

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Clancie
In answer to your first part, some "critical thinkers" elevate dogma and their ignorance of specific detail of an event to an art form.

In answer to the second part, when it comes specifically to the details of the Jordan case, Untrickable, what, to you, would constitute the "evidence" that Jordan, a psychic, did in fact help police find Tommy, apparently by psychic means?

What "evidence" is it, specifically, that you are looking for?

(Back later, re: voidx, loki, marian...)

A simple "yes" or "no" is all that was needed....

[Interesting Ian]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
I vote Marian as Best Newbie in a long time -- thorough, incisive, perspicacious, and more than a match for the slippery and evasive Clancie.

Yes I imagine that you would do so. "Best newbie" who fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc. Seems to me that it is as pointless discussing anything with Marian as it is discussing things with you.

[Beancounter]

Ouch!!! I take it from this Ian that you do believe that psychics have helped the police solve cases?

Sorry, I'm new around here.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes I imagine that you would do so. "Best newbie" who fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc. Seems to me that it is as pointless discussing anything with Marian as it is discussing things with you.

I thought you left??

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I thought you left??

What was that, less than a week?

[The Mighty Thor]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes I imagine that you would do so. "Best newbie" who fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc. Seems to me that it is as pointless discussing anything with Marian as it is discussing things with you.

Did Clancie PM you for some backup, Ian?
I thought you'd left for good???

What have you to say on the subject?

Go on. Impress us all!

And maybe you'd like to show exactly where Marian 'fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc.'? Sounds like projection to me, but I'm not a psychologist.

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
What have you to say on the subject?

Go on. Impress us all!

And maybe you'd like to show exactly where Marian 'fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc.'? Sounds like projection to me, but I'm not a psychologist.

Ian has nothing to offer but insults, circular arguments, and evasion. My advice is to ignore him. He's desperate for attention and acceptance, hence his repeated "I'm leaving" nonsense.

[Interesting Ian]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beancounter
Ouch!!! I take it from this Ian that you do believe that psychics have helped the police solve cases?

Sorry, I'm new around here.

I have absolutely no idea. Moreover, I haven't read any of this thread. Certainly I would not trust skeptics say so on this matter or any other matter regarding anomalous phenomena.