SCEPCOP Forum

I watched the Unsolved Mysteries video!!!!! I’m not sure why I took 2 hours out of my day to watch and take notes, but here is my assessment:
1st Video: She talks of her dream, but it sounds like she didn’t tell anyone until AFTER it was advertised he was missing. The police detective, Sgt Vicaro, admits he knew the family which means it was personal to him. He also admits that it was possible it was a hoax. He states he wants to interview her again to see if more info could be pulled from her.
2nd Video The number 120. That turned out to be either the time the baby was found or the time the detective was TOLD the baby was found. The statement wasn’t very clear. But then, what does it matter to the case as to what time the baby was found? Wouldn’t the road number or something like that have been more important? Obvious retrofitted clue. They thought they were looking for house numbers or dates. How does he know it was exactly 1:20 when the body was found? Could it have been 1:19 or 1:21? Either one would mean that wasn't a hit. Robert Stack said “several clues seemed to match.” How many is several? 5 out of 6? 5 out of 10? 5 out of 20? 8 out of 10, 8 out of 50? We’re not told of the misses which, by using the term “several” means there were some misses also. What were they and how significant? We’re not told. Could she have heard from somewhere what the child was wearing when he went missing? It seems that every missing child report I hear today we are told what the child was last seen wearing. Nothing substantial from the show to verify if this was an impressive hit or not.
3rd Video. The train passenger story: Sgt Lubertazzi was the officer interviewed. Told he’s in water by fire trucks (didn’t see fire trucks at the scene of the location of the body, though the Sgt said everything was exactly how she said it.) Mentioned the bow and arrow. Also, could have been impressive, but if an arrowhead was found nearby, would that have been considered a hit also? Not a long interview. Was “everything” really as she said it or did he exaggerate for the cameras? We don’t know as we weren’t provided with the specific hits and how they matched with the crime. Again, for a detective to say that "evertying she said was exactly how she said it would be," their coverage of this story was not very long or in-depth. My guess is several conflicting stories was left out, otherwise, it would have been the lead segment.
Ellen Jacobson (relative of the guy who wrote the book) May have a little too close of a connection to be considered a valid source. Stack says Dorothy knew nothing of the case. How does he know that? Dorothy sure wouldn’t say that she did.
4th Video: The Susan Jacobson story sounds impressive, admittedly. No police interviews from this story, only the parents of the child. Emotions may or may not have played a role in their memory. Was MAR the only letter she gave? Did she get anything wrong? We don’t know as they didn’t say how accurate she was, only that things she said matched. Typical of a person getting a reading that they only remember the hits and not the many, many misses. Especially when dealing with the grief of losing a daughter. Wish we could see the notes the parents took of Dorothy's initial interview with them.
5th Video: Hagerstown Md: Det Wattenscheidt (sp). The wig was an interesting hit. Dorothy stated the victim was hit on the head. Detective said her jaw was broken but was not the cause of death. She then turns to choking. After 24 hours, she gave “dozens of clues, some seem misdirected.” The choking agent was not made public, but obviously some things were. How much did she know or was able to look up prior to her arrival? We don’t know. The number 1 7 was the plot she was laid to rest in. 1 and 7 could have shown to be a number of different factors that could have been a hit. Addresses, birthdays, age, and any number of things. Not impressed with that one at all. Why hasn’t she been able to give a more direct hit with a number other than the burial plot. Again, retrofit.
6th Video: “In total, Dorothy came up with 50 different clues. Only when the crime is solved will we know how many of Dorothy’s visions were really connected with the death…” So, she didn’t help much in that case.
To summarize, there were only 3 detectives who were interviewed and one of those was still very skeptical of her. The other two were from Dorothy’s hometown. Again, we don’t know if they may have been friends of Dorothy for some time and wanted to help her fame. That fact can’t be left out or denied. Family members ONLY mentioned her hits. How many things did she tell them were NOT right? We don’t know that either. In the Hagerstown case, it says she gave 50 clues. If it turned out she got 10 out of 50, would that be impressive? No, that’s 20%. I could do that on any case simply by guessing. 30 or 40 hits would be impressive, but if that were the case, there would have been a follow-up episode. Again, we don’t know how many clues she actually gave in the child’s murder or the Jacobson murder, but if it was upwards of 50 and she got 10 of them, then like I said, 20% retrofitted to the crime is not very impressive. From this skeptic’s perspective, there is nothing psychic or paranormal about Dorothy. But again, you may see things differently than I. To you, a 20% hit rate may be worth further study. To me, a 20% hit rate means I have time to hit the golf course…
Wag

I'm afraid that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I will admit that on the surface, many of the clues she gave sound like incredible hits. Unfortunately, we just don't have more specifics at this time. We don't even know if the numbers were exact, how many different sets of numbers were presented, what she could or could not have known in advance, etc. I believe that both sides have presented their debate sufficiently. It will take more evidence than a TV show and a for-profit book to convince me that what people have said about her is 100% accurate.

I will summarize my side of the debate with this thought. Though I seriously doubt the existance of psychic abilities, I have and will continue to leave the door open to the possibility. At this time in our existance, however, there are far, far, far too many misses when it comes to giving clues to the police. Every now and again, a solid hit seems to be presented, but unfortunately, it is surrounded with so many misses that the hit does not help the police. Only AFTER the fact has evidence bee identified and that could be classified as a retrofitted clue. As such, in my eyes anyway, real police work should NOT involve psychic detectives in any way. If and when someone comes along that shows a significant number of positive clues, then that person may be useful. If a psychic could grab the hand of a detective and lead them to a body or a criminal, then that would be extremely helpful,, but unfortunately, that type of psychic detective does not yet appear to exist. ("google" 'Ginette Lucas and Dominic Casey' for an example of an interesting possibility though.)

In Dorothy's case, she may have had a few solid hits in her tenure, but imagine how much wasted time and energy the Atlanta police expelled in searching for the 42 names she gave them in the search for the Atlanta Child murders. If a psychic detective does have real abilities, they are not, as yet, accurate often enough to be of legitimate assistance in an investigation and needless time and resources are used up sifting through the possibilities when they should be hitting the streets with solid police work.

Does anyone else have a psychic detective case that we could research with more current and available data?
Wag

More data and research is definitely needed. I'd love to be able to interview those Police Detectives, Family Members, Relatives & Friends of Dorothy, Etc, and get more indepth information on these specific cases. And any actual physical evidence, like the actual notes written down by the Police Detectives months prior to the case being solved. Stuff like that would really be useful.

I'd even like to interview the Detectives on the cases she got wrong, to find out more info.

Nostradamus:

I guess it's like with those not-so-clear EVPs (below "Grade A" quality) that people like to showcase all the time, where if you are told beforehand what the voice is purportedly saying, you will hear exactly that when it's played. But if you're not told exactly what the voice is saying before it is played, everyone tends to hear something different.

Thus, if you show the photograph lined up with only photos of Karr, people will generally see it as resembling Karr. However, if you line it up with many other people who resemble the drawing more than Karr does, they tend to see it very differently.

I'm sure you could probably do the same with various police sketches of suspects that got features noticeably off, but really, this discussion is a bit pointless, because *even if* the drawing matched Karr, he wasn't the Jon Benet Killer, but a red herring.

My question still goes back to the idea of how we can work out a better definition of significance.

I did not try to find better matches of the drawing than Karr. I quickly looked for white guys with narrow chins. Ruled out the mullet crowd, the beardos, and photos of non-famous people (except for one).

It matters little if Karr was involved in the horrible murder of a child. What is of interest here is how do we work out a method of determining significance in these situations? How can we determine if a person supplies significant information? So many dolts in the news industry claimed that the photo was a sure hit with Karr. Does that add significance? My claim is NO. The reason is that comparing a photo to a drawing is not a proper manner to determine significance.

I think significance in the case of psychics in the criminal investigation arena need to provide information leading to the capture of a suspect. The event connecting the lines is not significant. Being able to point out a hit like a Monday morning quarterback is not a measure of significance because the actions did not lead forward in the investigation.