69. Psychic Detective Smackdown, Ben Radford (Podcast)

[mcairo]

Originally Posted by B Radford

I didn't really get into the Costanza situation, because Alex and I agreed to focus on the info that Weber gave about Hoffman's killer. That seemed to be the strongest part of the case...

This was a huge mistake. Mendham, NJ is a small town. How many tickets could Tommy Costanza have given to a man whose first name is James and his last name is of Eastern European descent and starts with a "K"?

If anything, this whole investigation into the Nancy Weber/Hoffman murder case is a good example how skeptics and psi proponents fail to collaborate together in a way that is productive or that gets one closer to the truth.

First, there was no consensus on what we were looking for. Was this an experiment to prove anomalous cognition, or an experiment to prove that some psychics can in some situations provide law enforcement with detailed information to help them in criminal investigations? Based on Ben Radford's arguments, this seemed like an investigation into the false conclusions that psychics make based on confirmation bias and selective memory recall. In other words, this investigation was all over the map.

Secondly, Ben and Alex should have established up front and agreed to a common threshold for proof, so the evidence in this case could be properly evaluated. Instead, what we heard are two passionate people arguing two distinct points, and neither of them adhering to one set of standards.

In the end, we are exactly where we started - divided.

I still have hope, but back to the drawing board.

[craven]

Hey Ben. Thanks for the additional info. It's interesting that Moore and Hughes said there was not enough data to go on, the obvious implication being they did not have all the key bits of information that have been mentioned. So yes, someone is wrong, somewhere.

It also clears up some confusion and speculation about the county prosecutor situation (but that's a different story).

Are you planning to write a transcript of your interviews?

Also, it would be nice if Alex could provide an extended, unedited version of the podcast. I'm sure there's some pretty rich dialog in there!

Best, and good luck.

[B Radford]

This was a huge mistake. Mendham, NJ is a small town. How many tickets could Tommy Costanza have given to a man whose first name is James and his last name is of Eastern European descent and starts with a "K"?

I don't think it was a huge mistake, since Weber gave far more (and far more detailed) info about Hoffman's killer than she did about Costanza. If I had spent my time investigating that, I would have been accused (by Alex or someone here) of focusing on the weaker evidence and ignoring all the "amazing" hits she got with Koedatich.

That being said, if you really believe that the Costanza ticket is the strongest part of this case, I encourage you to investigate it. I have spent many, many hours on this case so far over the course of 6 months (all unpaid, volunteer hours), and I believe I have given a reasonable explanation for the claims. To be honest, I don't have the time or energy to go any further on this.

Either Alex or I can give you contact info for Weber, Hughes, and Moore, and you are welcome to dig into that yourself...

The burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate Weber's claims, it is on Weber or Alex or Moore or Hughes to show that she made these amazingly accurate predictions.


>>First, there was no consensus on what we were looking for. This investigation was all over the map.

I don't think it was all over the map at all: It proceeded clearly and logically: What was the specific claim? Who made the claim? What evidence is there for the claim? Etc. I kept waiting for Alex to give me some proof or evidence or do some research, but all he did was send me a DVD of the TV show and do the interviews, and he seemed to think it was open-and-shut.

>>Secondly, Ben and Alex should have established up front and agreed to a common threshold for proof, so the evidence in this case could be properly evaluated.

I had a difficult time even getting Alex to admit that in a court of law the prosecutor (the person or entity making the claim) has the burden of proof!

[mcairo]

Originally Posted by craven

What data? Is there data here that we are not all aware of? How would you interpret this case differently, given what we know? How would you follow the data to find the truth in this case?

Craven, there was data to follow. The data may have led Ben to the same conclusion, but the argument would have been coherent, not concocted.

This was supposed to be an investigation into the evidence provided to the police in order to assist them solve a crime. The whole interview should have focused on what the detectives did with the evidence provided to them. With Ben calling into question the testimony of Nancy and the two detectives, he has opted to use the craft of discrediting the witness vs. discrediting the evidence.

For instance, these would have been good questions for Ben to ask....

1) In the interview, it was mentioned that Koedatich had been a suspect, but then dropped from the list by the chief investigator. Did Hughes and Moore know that Koedatich was a suspect? Were they pissed off that he was dropped from the suspect list? Was Nancy inadvertently clued into that Koedatich had been a suspect?

2) If Koedatich was a suspect, and Nancy delivered the info that she claimed to deliver, why didn't anyone look into the background of all suspects on the list and see if any of them matched up to Nancy's claims.

3) Did anyone follow up Tommy Costanza's ticket docket?

I don't know if any of this is valid or pertinent, but they are good questions.

Obviously, I am a medium, I totally attest to the truth of anomolous cognition, but if we are all going to play on a level playing field and devote ourselves to the virtues of truth and fairness, this investigation falls way short.

[B Radford]

Glad to help...

>>It's interesting that Moore and Hughes said there was not enough data to go on, the obvious implication being they did not have all the key bits of information that have been mentioned. So yes, someone is wrong, somewhere.

Yes. I find it amazing that Alex is unable or unwilling to admit that, as you noted, "someone is wrong, somewhere." This seems obvious and self-evident to me, but Alex said he doesn't see any real contradictions (I think the phrase was "no meaningful contradictions" or something). To him, Weber and the police are saying virtually the same thing, and the glaring contradictions are mere nit-picking. No, they are not. I said at the beginning of the investigation that in most of these cases, the devil is in the details.

Remember, what made this case so "amazing" was the specific information Weber gave-- not the usual vague, "will be found near water" type stuff usually given by psychics, but the "amazingly specific" info: Polish; K; James, "ich" , Florida, etc. Little or none of that was corroborated by the police officers if you closely look at what they said.

And Alex even told me at one point, “These detectives have no reason to lie…. And it just doesn’t seem very likely they’re mis-remembering these specific facts—cops get this kind of stuff right! Let’s face it, you’re going to have to get Moore and Hughes to change their recollection of things. I don’t see that happening.”

Alex threw down the gauntlet and said that the only way I could discredit Weber's info in his eyes is if I found inconsistencies in the police officer's accounts and recollections, and that is exactly what happened: Moore and Hughes DID change their recollection of things.

Even when I met Alex's burden of proof, instead of admitting that maybe there are serious problems with his evidence, he just dismisses the contradictions as minor and irrelevant.

>>Are you planning to write a transcript of your interviews?

I provided Alex with all the audio of my interviews, he has them. Whether he chooses to make them available is up to him. I have a copy, of course, but transcribing is very time-consuming and laborious, so I have only transcribed parts of it so far.

>>Also, it would be nice if Alex could provide an extended, unedited version of the podcast.

Yes, that would be nice... then you could hear all of my points, unedited.

[B Radford]

And by the way, since Alex and others here like to use the "court system" analogy so much...

In the courtroom, police officers always refer to written notes to refresh their memories, even about incidents that happened weeks or months earlier. It is standard procedure.

If this were a legal issue and this was a court case, if I were Alex I'd be sweating bullets: I have no hard evidence, no forensic evidence. My entire case comes down to the memory of three eyewitnesses who had a conversation nearly 30 years ago. There are no written notes. Oh, and by the way, the three eyewitnesses often contradict each other, telling two (or three) different stories, depending on what the specific question is.

This case would be laughed out of court; does anyone really believe otherwise?

[Open Mind]

Hello Ben

Originally Posted by B Radford

all we can go by are the memories of three people of a conversation that happened 27 years ago.

Yes but the detectives reaction at being stunned at the accuracy wasn't 27 years ago. Are you saying two police detectives were stunned over vaguely matching information? Why would they be?

If all three witnesses said the same thing, that might be strong evidence for Weber's claims.

Two witnesses agreeing is still better than one. The two detectives accounts match well and all 3 match on other stuff.

Weber claims she told them the killer's first name was James. Both police officers said that wasn't true.

Weber claims she told them the killer's last name began with a K. Both police officers said that wasn't true.

Weber claims she told them the killer was Polish. Both police officers said that wasn't true.

Weber claims she told them the killer's last names ended in "isch". Both police officers said that wasn't true.

Weber claims she told them the killer did time in a Florida prison. Both police officers at first told me they didn't remember her saying that, then one of them contradicted himself (I have it on tape) and decided yes, she did specify Florida.

The detectives didn't say 'it wasn't true' to all of these, they said they couldn't remember. You have merely picked things they can't recall and claimed this is evidence they disagree.

THIS is the "best case" for psychic detectives?

Who claimed that? What makes you think the existence of psi must be demonstrated to be 100% accurate or therefore 100% false?

How about a challenge 'Ben vs Psychic Detective' ... no arbitrary criteria of level of pass or failure. Just 'Ben vs Psychic Detective' over a series of controlled trials to see if who does better overall and if any of you can reach statistical significance?

[craven]

Originally Posted by mcairo

This was supposed to be an investigation into the evidence provided to the police in order to assist them solve a crime. The whole interview should have focused on what the detectives did with the evidence provided to them.

I completely agree. Though Ben did ask Hughes and Moore what they did with the information, and they said (paraphrased) "nothing, because there was not enough to go on". How in God's name is this possible? If anything is clear, it is that we are not getting a correct picture of what happened from our three players. I just straight up refuse to accept that Nancy gave them all of that info and they felt they had nothing to go on. The gap in logic here is ridiculous.

1) In the interview, it was mentioned that Koedatich had been a suspect, but then dropped from the list by the chief investigator. Did Hughes and Moore know that Koedatich was a suspect? Were they pissed off that he was dropped from the suspect list? Was Nancy inadvertently clued into that Koedatich had been a suspect?

Great question!

2) If Koedatich was a suspect, and Nancy delivered the info that she claimed to deliver, why didn't anyone look into the background of all suspects on the list and see if any of them matched up to Nancy's claims.

Again, both Hughes and Moore said there was not enough to go on. I was always SHOCKED that during all of his interaction with them, Alex never once asked such a simple question. Any attempt to reconcile how these two officers had all the info they did and failed to act results in deadlock.

3) Did anyone follow up Tommy Costanza's ticket docket?

I would really have liked an answer to this too. But again it causes gaps. If Nancy told them Costanza had issued a ticket to the perp, and they didn't follow up, then they blew it. But no one wants to believe that either.

Honestly, if Alex could make available a full unedited version of the podcast, as well as Ben's interviews with Hughes and Moore I'm sure we would all be appreciative.

[B Radford]

>>Are you saying two police detectives were stunned over vaguely matching information? Why would they be?

Moore and Hughes were, like all humans, subject to confirmation bias. While it is possible that Weber’s information was 100% on target, it is far more likely that the detectives simply didn’t remember or focus on the parts she got wrong. I have seen this many times in my psychic det. investigations: psychic says body will be found near water and something associated with rocks or stones; body is later discovered by passerby near a riverbed; psychic points out to anyone who will listen (including police) that her info was correct: Body WAS found near water and rocks. This impresses some people (even police), but is not good evidence of psychic powers. For another, similar example of exactly this situation, see my investigation of Noreen Renier and the Charles Capel case. Police sergeant Squance was amazed at Renier's "amazing accurate" info, but it was not useful nor remarkable.

This is a mistake that Alex keeps making:A psychic's success or failure has nothing to do with whether or not one or more police officers were impressed by the information. Psychic ability is not an opinion poll, it is validated by evidence and proof, not whether one or more police think the psychic is real.

>>Two witnesses agreeing is still better than one. The two detectives accounts match well and all 3 match on other stuff.

Yes, you are correct. Both police officer's accounts match well: They both agree that Weber did NOT give the specific information she claims!

They BOTH say they don't remember her telling them the last name started with K. They BOTH say they don't remember her telling them the last name ended with "ich". They BOTH say they don't remember her telling them the suspect was Polish. They BOTH say they don't remember her telling them the last name had several syllables.. And so on. Over and over, both police officers dispute most of Weber's claims; it's two police officers against one psychic.

>>and all 3 match on other stuff.

That's not correct; please look more closely at what they say. In fact, there are only two pieces of information that all three of them remember and agree on: 1) that Hoffman’s killer had done time in prison for murder; and 2) he lived nearby.

Even these two claims are far less impressive than they first appear. News reports of the day reported the savagery of the attack on Hoffman. The November 26 front page of the local Daily Record stated that Hoffman “was stabbed several times in the chest and other parts of the body with a sharp instrument." The next day, the Record reported, “Police said [the stab wounds] were made by a blade eight to nine inches long, perhaps a large hunting knife or bayonet. One of the stab wounds reached almost through her body… There were also cuts on Hoffman’s neck as if someone held a knife to her throat, police said. The autopsy also revealed three fingers on Hoffman’s right hand had been cut as if warding off knife thrusts."

Does it take psychic powers to guess that a person who slashes and stabs a young woman multiple times with a large knife in such a vicious attack might have killed before? It is of course possible that this was the killer’s first victim, but suggesting that it is not is hardly remarkable. The same goes for the killer’s location; most homicides are committed by locals, not by people from other states or countries. Weber’s psychic information that the killer was from somewhere in the Morris County, New Jersey area—instead of, say, from San Diego or Istanbul—is unremarkable.

>>The detectives didn't say 'it wasn't true' to all of these, they said they couldn't remember. You have merely picked things they can't recall and claimed this is evidence they disagree.

That's right. We have three people who are all relying on memories. Nancy Weber says "I remember telling them X, Y, and Z" Capt. Moore and Sgt. Hughes say, "I do not remember Nancy telling us X, Y, and Z."

Who do you believe? At least one person is not remembering correctly, and in this case we have two police officers (Weber's and Alex's star witnesses) who say "I do not recall her saying this." Is Weber remembering wrong? Are both police remembering wrong? Either way, it only weakens this case, which completely relies on memories.

With three different recollections, and without corroborating evidence, it’s impossible to know who to believe. Obviously in this case psychic detective Nancy Weber has a clear vested personal and financial interest in making her information seem as amazing and accurate as possible. It is one of her most high-profile cases. Logic suggests that the police officers (despite being friends of Weber’s) have less to gain and more to lose from biasing their information.

In some cases, we have three different stories, three different memories of what was said. In each case, Weber’s memory is that she gave very accurate, specific information. Moore and Hughes agree on some details, but disagree on many others. One can’t just cherry pick whichever evidence supports a preconceived answer, nor arbitrarily choose whose memory to believe


>>THIS is the "best case" for psychic detectives?
>>Who claimed that?

I thought you knew: Alex did. That's what this was all about: Alex repeatedly accused skeptical investigators of purposely choosing the weakest cases. According to Tsakiris, skeptics steered away from the “best cases,” and instead chose the most dubious ones. He asked, “Why don’t you ever investigate very good cases?”

That wasn’t true of me or any other skeptical investigators I knew—as an investigator, I don’t want to waste my time on poor evidence. Time and again, a skeptical investigator will spend days or weeks or months carefully investigating and solving a case, only to have the proponents shift the emphasis: “Okay, maybe that one turned out to be a hoax or misunderstanding, but what about this case over here?” Then the investigator is expected to spend another week or month of hard work on that case. And the process then repeats. For this reason, many skeptics will often tackle only cases which are well supported by strong evidence.

So I challenged Alex to find his best case for psychic detectives. I replied, “You find the best case you can. Look through all the psychics you want, figure one out, and pick the one case you think is airtight.” Any case from any time, anywhere in the world, that he felt presented the gold standard for evidence of psychic detectives. He would then present it to me, and as time allowed I would investigate it to see if could explain it by any means other than psychic powers. A few weeks later, he contacted me with the Amie Hoffman murder case.

[B Radford]

Originally Posted by craven

How in God's name is this possible? If anything is clear, it is that we are not getting a correct picture of what happened from our three players. I just straight up refuse to accept that Nancy gave them all of that info and they felt they had nothing to go on. The gap in logic here is ridiculous.

Craven, I could not agree more.

If anyone can explain that to me, I would love to hear the logical reason why I could find the killer in 20 minutes using the information Nancy claims the police had at the time and a phone book, but two veteran police officers with all their resources couldn't find him. If they had, Deirdre O'Brien would be alive.