View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

JREF Blackmail Tapes

Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby skeprogue » 28 Jul 2009, 10:30

The Professor wrote:If you are asking why many criminals escape justice, there are dozens of reasons.


None of which apply in Randi's case, since you have asserted that there was a court case which would leave records behind, unless the defendant is a minor found guilty.

Now, you have posted what you claim is a verbatim excerpt of that court case. Where is the rest of it?
skeprogue
 
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 00:18






Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby The Professor » 28 Jul 2009, 14:57

Thousands of criminals each year escape justice on technicalities etc.
The new law about these types of crimes may put this one back on the table.
Cold cases are hard to prove but the evidence, or lack of evidence, is coming to light in this particular case.

The recordings are disgusting at the very least. In all of these posts I've seen nothing to prove that they aren't what the are ... A grown adult male talking a kid into meeting him for oral sex. (Even though the kids says he wants to quit) Please point me to what part of this tape says any differently.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
The Professor
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 11:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Steve Knight » 28 Jul 2009, 19:49

Dave, I don't believe the tapes in themselves constitute evidence for paedophilia, at least not as defined by most people. The judge in Randi vs. Byrd stated:

"I do not think a reasonable person could listen to this tape and find that it does relate to child molestation. In fact, I think it
would be an unreasonable person who would listen to the tape and think it does relate to child molestation."

btw Dave, will you follow up the case of the magician mentioned? Wouldn't it be good to know the truth either way?

skeprogue wrote:But I've got to wonder what evidence you would expect Randi to provide: if his statement is true, then this was a criminal case against a minor. In such cases the court records are normally sealed, and police records purged. If his statement is not true, however, then this would have been a criminal case against Randi, and a redacted court record would be available.


I don't know what the legal position might have been in New Jersey in the late '60's with regard to minors, or if John Hitchcock was regarded as one in the eyes of the law at the time. Here in the U.K. the identity of minors is protected unless they are found guilty in which case the details of the case emerge and become part of the public record. Since Randi has named this individual I'm guessing he was permitted to do so. The second part of your statement, that there would have been a criminal case against Randi had his statements been untrue, only follows if one accepts the idea (apparently suggested in the 'blackmail package') that the tapes were from a police tap on Randi's phone as part of their own investigations. At this stage I don't think anybody really believes that.

One thing that did stand out during a re-listening was the collect call made to Randi by someone named as Debbie Henderson. The operator says the call is for Donald who Randi denies knowing, then an unidentified male at the callers end says that the call is for Donald or Jim. Evidently this person knew Randi by more than just the pseudonym 'Donald', he seems to have known his real first name. This suggests a greater familiarity with someone than having just called a number on a toilet wall that reads, "For a good time call Donald" etc.
Steve Knight
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 18:46

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby desertgal » 28 Jul 2009, 20:15

Eteponge wrote:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4929036

"Ive seen some ill informed illogical people on boards but those over there are stupid beyond anything." - Azrael

To keep up with what Azazel and friends are saying about us here behind our backs.

Thanks for proving yet again to me that the JREF Forum is nothing more than a one-sided ad hominem driven bash fest.

Quoting several of my posts out of context suggesting that I "totally side with the questioner" in that video in another thread, bullshit. I merely made an observation of the crowd's reaction, not even allowing the guy to speak his part by using shout down / laugh down tactics (I said nothing of whether or not I agreed with him, or his views, or his questions. The whole purpose of commenting on the crowd was they weren't even letting him get his questions across without trying to shout / laugh him down. That's just bad form. I don't care who the guy is, let him fully address himself and ask his questions, then if his questions are adequately challenged and shot down afterwards, with him having no good counter-arguments, laugh and jeer all you want, but let him ask them first, and allow to give a rebuttal. If he's got nothing, he should be laughed down, but only after he gets to make a fool of himself, not before.)

I'd say the same of Skeptics getting shouted down in a Paranormal Conference. Hell, I've been taking up for Skeptics here regarding "The Professor's" antics. But, hey, we're all "mindless woos" here, right?

And then another poster there quoting me asking for additional clarification on the Randi tapes from the Skeptic's side of the story, and then acting as though alleged pedophilia is "not a big deal" because it occurred over 30 years ago.

I don't quite understand that.


I didn't say alleged pedophilia is "not a big deal", so who is taking posts out of context now? You are quoting words I didn't use. Pedophilia is always a big deal. But so is calling someone a pedophile without ALL the facts at your disposal.

Here's the thing. You all are talking about a phone call or calls that occurred nearly 30 years ago. If you want further clarification, that's fine, but it is extremely unlikely that you are going to get it. The police have not arrested Randi for pedophilia, then or in the years since. No, that isn't solid evidence of innocence, but it IS an indication that there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges against him. I realize you all want Randi to be guilty, but if there wasn't compelling evidence then, what makes you think there would be compelling evidence now? The case involved a minor, so the records have been expunged. Given that, there is no chance of putting this one "back on the table". At this stage, conclusive proof, in either direction, cannot be established. Fact is, I have no idea if Randi is a pedophile or not. If he is, then he should have been called to account for that in a court of law-but the chance that he would be now is zilch. The statute of limitations has long expired.

The best you can do at this point talk in circles, read Koenig's rants and his pretense at actually understanding the law, and participate in his attempts to smear James Randi-without ALL the facts. If that is what pushes your buttons, then, fine, okay-but fact is, you'd all be screaming foul if Koenig did it to you. Even if you don't like James Randi-and I appreciate that you might not-why does that make it okay for Koenig to do it to him?

I just don't get the point. We have people out there right now who are beating their children to death, or preying on children via the Internet. Hell, Jessica Lunsford was buried alive, because a registered sex offender slipped through the cracks. Why waste the time even responding to Koenig's ranting over a case that cannot be changed? Better to expend the energy towards cases that we CAN change. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of manure.

I apologize for saying that this issue seems to titillate people-I shouldn't have lumped you all with Koenig. That was out of line and unfair. Mea culpa.
desertgal
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 18:59

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby The Professor » 28 Jul 2009, 23:27

I'm so happy that you've posted here !!!!
You've listened to the recordings then?
Bottom line is that the caller was trying to convince an under aged boy to meet him for oral sex. Many have stated that randi has finally agreed it was him.
I think that they have many TV shows that seem to show this conduct is illegal. Too bad they weren't in time to save these boys.
Thousands of people get away with crime on a daily basis. Should they be rewarded since they "Got Lucky" and Barney Fife dropped the ball or they found a technicality that let them escape? I don't think so.

I also am happy that you've posted about a pedophile killing an innocent youngster here in Florida just a few hours from the JREF.
These murders are escalating. There are hundreds of them all unsolved. Pedophiles are kidnapping and murdering kids at an alarming rate.
Madeline McCaan was kidnapped and a JREF Forum member Azreal, uses the kidnappers likeness as his image on the Forum ... Sounds SICK to me.
Are you part of their forum too? Still?
Last edited by The Professor on 28 Jul 2009, 23:48, edited 1 time in total.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
The Professor
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 11:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Eteponge » 28 Jul 2009, 23:33

desertgal wrote:
Eteponge wrote:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4929036

"Ive seen some ill informed illogical people on boards but those over there are stupid beyond anything." - Azrael

To keep up with what Azazel and friends are saying about us here behind our backs.

Thanks for proving yet again to me that the JREF Forum is nothing more than a one-sided ad hominem driven bash fest.

Quoting several of my posts out of context suggesting that I "totally side with the questioner" in that video in another thread, bullshit. I merely made an observation of the crowd's reaction, not even allowing the guy to speak his part by using shout down / laugh down tactics (I said nothing of whether or not I agreed with him, or his views, or his questions. The whole purpose of commenting on the crowd was they weren't even letting him get his questions across without trying to shout / laugh him down. That's just bad form. I don't care who the guy is, let him fully address himself and ask his questions, then if his questions are adequately challenged and shot down afterwards, with him having no good counter-arguments, laugh and jeer all you want, but let him ask them first, and allow to give a rebuttal. If he's got nothing, he should be laughed down, but only after he gets to make a fool of himself, not before.)

I'd say the same of Skeptics getting shouted down in a Paranormal Conference. Hell, I've been taking up for Skeptics here regarding "The Professor's" antics. But, hey, we're all "mindless woos" here, right?

And then another poster there quoting me asking for additional clarification on the Randi tapes from the Skeptic's side of the story, and then acting as though alleged pedophilia is "not a big deal" because it occurred over 30 years ago.

I don't quite understand that.


I didn't say alleged pedophilia is "not a big deal", so who is taking posts out of context now? You are quoting words I didn't use. Pedophilia is always a big deal. But so is calling someone a pedophile without ALL the facts at your disposal.

Here's the thing. You all are talking about a phone call or calls that occurred nearly 30 years ago. If you want further clarification, that's fine, but it is extremely unlikely that you are going to get it. The police have not arrested Randi for pedophilia, then or in the years since. No, that isn't solid evidence of innocence, but it IS an indication that there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges against him. I realize you all want Randi to be guilty, but if there wasn't compelling evidence then, what makes you think there would be compelling evidence now? The case involved a minor, so the records have been expunged. Given that, there is no chance of putting this one "back on the table". At this stage, conclusive proof, in either direction, cannot be established. Fact is, I have no idea if Randi is a pedophile or not. If he is, then he should have been called to account for that in a court of law-but the chance that he would be now is zilch. The statute of limitations has long expired.

The best you can do at this point talk in circles, read Koenig's rants and his pretense at actually understanding the law, and participate in his attempts to smear James Randi-without ALL the facts. If that is what pushes your buttons, then, fine, okay-but fact is, you'd all be screaming foul if Koenig did it to you. Even if you don't like James Randi-and I appreciate that you might not-why does that make it okay for Koenig to do it to him?

I just don't get the point. We have people out there right now who are beating their children to death, or preying on children via the Internet. Hell, Jessica Lunsford was buried alive, because a registered sex offender slipped through the cracks. Why waste the time even responding to Koenig's ranting over a case that cannot be changed? Better to expend the energy towards cases that we CAN change. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of manure.

I apologize for saying that this issue seems to titillate people-I shouldn't have lumped you all with Koenig. That was out of line and unfair. Mea culpa.

Thanks for clarification. And I apologize for insulting JREF (using the term "Randi-ites"), that too is unfair, because there are a wide range of people who post at JREF, some are very reasonable, polite skeptics, not all are insult / belittling prone, and those who are tend to just be tired of bullshit. I try to be keeper of the peace here, and allow Skeptics to post, and do not wish to ban anyone. I want the opposing views here, because I despise confirmation bias. I want to hear out all sides of the issue. I want reasonable discussion and debate on these topics.

As for the Randi Tapes, I was merely curious about what the official Randi position and counter-responses were. Like how one first hears about the latest celebrity scandal and wants to know whats going on from both sides of the issue. "Well, what do they have to say about it, and does it add up?" Yes, it happened over 30 years ago, and isn't really pedophilia, the guys on the tapes were 17 and older. And the whole reason people bring up the Tapes is as a smokescreen and logical fallacy to erroneously suggest that all of Randi's life work must be in question because he allegedly solicited sex over the phone with younger guys, which doesn't make logical sense. It's just an attack on Randi's character, that doesn't really disprove anything in regards to his work.

And I didn't call Randi a Pedophile, I merely remarked on the allegations using the term "alleged pedophilia" in regards to the claims, and never stated that I have all the facts, in fact, I was asking for Skeptics' side of the story. And I've clearly stated here that Randi's side of the story could very well be correct. I'm merely asking questions. Your saying on JREF that it occurred over 30 years ago, what's the big deal, is what made me remark asking if "alleged pedophilia" is not a big deal just because it occurred 30 years ago.

As for Koenig, if you read any of my posts here, you will see that I have serious issues with him attacking Randi with the Tapes as a clear smokescreen to avoid talking about the meat of the issue at hand, his MDC rejection, what his paranormal claims are, what his protocol is, etc. And it took him awhile to admit he is a magician.

I've told him to knock off the insults and get with the main discussion (the MDC claim), but he doesn't seem to be listening. I don't blame the Skeptics for being upset at him over his antics.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby The Professor » 28 Jul 2009, 23:54

OK ... Let's get straight to the ISSUES ...17 is UNDER AGE !!!!
Not sure where you got that it wasn't?
Were these boys PAID?
That's prostitution isn't it? So how were they rewarded?
Some kids actually lie about their age and claim to be older ... Ever consider that. No?

Also ..EVERYONE knows I'm a MENTALIST (I've never kept it a secret).... It's the main reason they booted me. It's NEVER been a secret. Do you tell everyone here on the forum what your day gig is? Most don't ... I do since I'm honest!

As far as me attacking randi ... please compare the multitude of names the skeptics have called me already on this thread to the names I've called randi ... Who is attacking????

It's obvious!

I want to get to the Truth!
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
The Professor
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 11:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby Eteponge » 29 Jul 2009, 00:13

The Professor wrote:OK ... Let's get straight to the ISSUES ...17 is UNDER AGE !!!!
Not sure where you got that it wasn't?

Depends on the state. Some states, the law of consent is 18, but in other states, it's 16. I know, because my cousin once dated a girl who was 16 when he was 20, and I obviously asked him, "Isn't that illegal?" and he responded, "No, in our state, the law of consent is 16. Some it's 18, others it's 16." And I looked it up, and sure enough, he was correct. So, if Randi was in a state where the law of consent was 16, then it wouldn't have been illegal.

Also, Pedophilia is technically people who are attracted to pre-pubescent children. For older teenagers there is another term, but I don't recall.

The Professor wrote:Were these boys PAID?
That's prostitution isn't it? So how were they rewarded?
Some kids actually lie about their age and claim to be older ... Ever consider that. No?

The tapes never mention money (at least that I recall), and about them lying about their age, there is no way to prove nor disprove that with what we know.

The Professor wrote:As far as me attacking randi ... please compare the multitude of names the skeptics have called me already on this thread to the names I've called randi ... Who is attacking????

It's obvious!

I want to get to the Truth!

They've informed me that the reason they respond to you all hostile is because you respond to them all hostile, a tit for tat sort of thing, you can't expect them to remain silent with accusations like these, and they've informed me that you've done the same thing here as you have to their forums, spamming the links to the tapes, and not dealing with the main topic of discussion (the MDC rejection, alleged paranormal claims, protocol, etc).
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby skeprogue » 29 Jul 2009, 00:20

The Professor wrote:Thousands of criminals each year escape justice on technicalities etc.



... which do not prevent court records from being made.

Once again: you claimed that the fable you posted was a "verbatim" excerpt from those court records. How do you know this, and where is the rest of the record?
skeprogue
 
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 00:18

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby The Professor » 29 Jul 2009, 00:29

Are you claiming that seduction of under aged boys is Legal there ... Please show me?
And if he crosses state lines it could also be a Federal crime as well.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
The Professor
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 11:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby skeprogue » 29 Jul 2009, 00:34

The Professor wrote:OK ... Let's get straight to the ISSUES ...17 is UNDER AGE !!!!
Not sure where you got that it wasn't?
Were these boys PAID?
That's prostitution isn't it? So how were they rewarded?
Some kids actually lie about their age and claim to be older ... Ever consider that. No?

Also ..EVERYONE knows I'm a MENTALIST (I've never kept it a secret).... It's the main reason they booted me. It's NEVER been a secret. Do you tell everyone here on the forum what your day gig is? Most don't ... I do since I'm honest!

As far as me attacking randi ... please compare the multitude of names the skeptics have called me already on this thread to the names I've called randi ... Who is attacking????

It's obvious!

I want to get to the Truth!


The age of consent varies from state to state and conditions such as the relative age of the parties involved. What proof do you offer that in either jurisdiction 17 was underage at that time?

Why do you assume there was a reward for acts you cannot even begin to prove took place?

Since there was a court case, one can assume things like the age of the boys was established.

No, the main reason you were booted was reportedly your continued harrassment and threats toward another member after multiple warnings.

And your day gig is reportedly as a John Belushi impersonator.

Do tell us all the names you have been called, and which are as unsupported as your accusations about Randi.

Speaking of the Truth, how do you know that the fable you posted was "verbatim" and where is the rest of the transcript?
skeprogue
 
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 00:18

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby The Professor » 29 Jul 2009, 00:56

Seventeen is UNDER AGE ... You must provide PROOF that it isn't!
Even then you must prove randi was not on the phone from another state.
Don't you see those TV shows where the guy shows up after they contact under aged kids?
Same deal!

He wanted oral sex from the kid. The kid even said he didn't want to and then randi convinced him.
It's all there on tape one ...
I will be delving into tape two next! There's lots more!!!!
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
The Professor
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 11:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby skeprogue » 29 Jul 2009, 01:27

The Professor wrote:Seventeen is UNDER AGE ... You must provide PROOF that it isn't!


You really should start checking your facts, liar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_co ... State_laws

wikipedia wrote:
Each US state has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.

age of consent 16: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
age of consent 17: Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Texas
age of consent 18: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.



The Professor wrote:Even then you must prove randi was not on the phone from another state.


No, if you want to make a case, then you have to do the proving.

The Professor wrote:Don't you see those TV shows where the guy shows up after they contact under aged kids?
Same deal!


Other than the fact that LE had actual evidence in each of those cases, maybe.

And where exactly did Randi "show up?"

The Professor wrote:I will be delving into tape two next! There's lots more!!!!


You mean, like more of that transcript you lied about being "verbatim?"

I can hardly wait.
skeprogue
 
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 00:18

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby The Professor » 29 Jul 2009, 01:46

"Verbatim" ... Please show where I used that word ..... OR ARE YOU LYING !!!!!!!! As always.
You are a liar!
If not .. Prove it!
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
The Professor
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 11:26

Re: JREF Blackmail Tapes

Postby desertgal » 29 Jul 2009, 03:26

Eteponge wrote:Thanks for clarification. And I apologize for insulting JREF (using the term "Randi-ites"), that too is unfair, because there are a wide range of people who post at JREF, some are very reasonable, polite skeptics, not all are insult / belittling prone, and those who are tend to just be tired of bullshit. I try to be keeper of the peace here, and allow Skeptics to post, and do not wish to ban anyone. I want the opposing views here, because I despise confirmation bias. I want to hear out all sides of the issue. I want reasonable discussion and debate on these topics.


Well, for what it is worth, I didn't come here to have an unreasonable discussion, so rest easy on that score. I also have no intention of responding to Koenig, simply because he isn't worth responding to.

As for the Randi Tapes, I was merely curious about what the official Randi position and counter-responses were. Like how one first hears about the latest celebrity scandal and wants to know whats going on from both sides of the issue. "Well, what do they have to say about it, and does it add up?" Yes, it happened over 30 years ago, and isn't really pedophilia, the guys on the tapes were 17 and older. And the whole reason people bring up the Tapes is as a smokescreen and logical fallacy to erroneously suggest that all of Randi's life work must be in question because he allegedly solicited sex over the phone with younger guys, which doesn't make logical sense. It's just an attack on Randi's character, that doesn't really disprove anything in regards to his work.


I agree. I also have to point out that none of these young men (was there more than one?), or their parents, as far as we know, filed criminal or civil charges against Randi. It wasn't just up to the police to bring charges-they had the option, as well. So, one has to ask, if Randi's actions warranted it...then why didn't they? That says a great deal.

And I didn't call Randi a Pedophile, I merely remarked on the allegations using the term "alleged pedophilia" in regards to the claims, and never stated that I have all the facts, in fact, I was asking for Skeptics' side of the story. And I've clearly stated here that Randi's side of the story could very well be correct. I'm merely asking questions.


Fair enough. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Your saying on JREF that it occurred over 30 years ago, what's the big deal, is what made me remark asking if "alleged pedophilia" is not a big deal just because it occurred 30 years ago.


Well, I never said that it was "not a big deal". What I said was that, after this many years, who cares? I realize that came across the wrong way. What I meant was, after so long, and with the records expunged, it is impossible to establish any definite conclusions about Randi's guilt or innocence without all the details-so trying to do so does seem like a waste of time to me. If something could be done about it, or the case could be reopened, that would be different, but there is no allowance in the laws that would resurrect the case. There are more heinous crimes occurring today that deserve our attention than an old case that can't be proven, can't be resurrected, and is only used by asshats like Koenig to defame James Randi.

As well, certainly, the then young men/man involved have rights to privacy as well, after this many years, instead of having these tapes and their identities revealed on the Internet and debated repeatedly.

As for Koenig, if you read any of my posts here, you will see that I have serious issues with him attacking Randi with the Tapes as a clear smokescreen to avoid talking about the meat of the issue at hand, his MDC rejection, what his paranormal claims are, what his protocol is, etc. And it took him awhile to admit he is a magician.
I've told him to knock off the insults and get with the main discussion (the MDC claim), but he doesn't seem to be listening. I don't blame the Skeptics for being upset at him over his antics.


Koenig is good at jackasstics. He isn't worth the attention, or the frustration. I predict you'll never get further with Koenig than you have so far. Calling Randi a pederast does titillate him, for some disgusting reason.
Last edited by desertgal on 29 Jul 2009, 03:45, edited 1 time in total.
desertgal
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 18:59

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron