Sensing Murder and friends

My last blog dealing with the deletion of a uncited non noteworthy psychic named Jackie Barrett, made me think that there might be others like her.  Up, just as some kind of advertising.  Face it, being able to state "I'm on Wikipedia" gives credibility.  I'm really disappointed with Wikipedia that they allow this kind of thing to happen.  I assume that there aren't enough volunteer editors out there looking for this kind of thing.  I guess that is why we need to get on the job.

It appears that any con-artist can whip out a page, and get it past the editors.  Lots of people post stubs, thinking they will get back to it soon.  Well sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.  Whether this is well-meaning or just laziness can be argued all night.

Guerrilla Skepticism isn't just leaving well-cited references that have a skeptical slant, but checking sources for paranormal claims.  I keep finding this kind of crap, " working with clients and also with law enforcement. She has worked alongside district attorneys, law enforcement, and America's Most Wanted to help solve case files across the United States."  as I found on Barrett's page.  The citations that were left to prove this were from her own blog and website.  WHAT!

Here I am preaching over and over that you must cite carefully and only noteworthy citations and people are getting away with this thing.  Okay, need to calm down and get to my point.

It isn't just the psychic grief vampires, I'm sure this is happening in the alt med world as well as all the pseudoscience areas.  I just happen to troll the psychic pages so I'm more likely to notice it.  John Farquher and I are working (slowly) on the psychic detective page and I've started looking at existing citations a little closer.

Noticed this on psychic detectives...

"The Australian Sensing Murder television series features self-described psychics assisting with unsolved murder cases. Although the psychics have been able to anticipate some facts known only to the police, none of the cases have been solved, over four seasons."  

No citation, so this will be removed.  But it made me curious what is this Sensing Murder show?

Found this in the lead paragraph.

The psychics have not managed to solve any of the cases, although they have uncovered facts that only police knew about.^{[dubious – discuss]} They have in some cases provided actual names of persons related to the area the crime was committed to police, names of persons confirmed by serving or ex-serving police officers to have existed and resided in close proximity to locations of crimes around the time they were committed.^{[citation needed]} 

One thing that is really frustrating me is that some editor on Wikipedia is flagging these things, then not going back to check up it. Doesn't the editor make some kind of note, mental or otherwise to check up?  The Jackie Barrett page was flagged in 2007.

^{Reading over the citations it appears that all are from TV.com which lists all the episodes. 
Then there are a few that have dead links.}  

1. ^ "Sensing Murder an Export Success"
   . 17 May 2002. Retrieved 23 August 2009.^{[dead link]}
2. ^ "COMMISSIONS - SENSING MURDER OPTIONED FOR US MARKET."
   . 26 April 2004. Retrieved 23 August 2009.
3. ^ "Sensing Murder Responds to $2 million Paranormal Challenge'"
   . NZ Reality TV. Retrieved 5 October 2007.^{[dead link]}

 <sup>Really makes you wonder?  

So what to do?   Does this page deserve to remain on Wikipedia?  I'm going to go through
it again and remove anything not cited, or has a broken link and see what is left.  

Back on the psychic detective page I notice this reference to the police calling in
psychic Debbie Malone. The citation did not include a URL, but I managed to search 
and find it anyway.  The article is vague with little skepticism.  I expanded on the blurb 
which was originally only this "The NSW Police Forces' Missing Unit has referred 
families of missing persons to psychic Debbie Malone."</sup>  

The NSW Police Forces' Missing Persons Unit has referred families of missing persons to psychic Debbie Malone, one Former Detective Senior-Constable Jeffrey Little felt her description of what happened was "exceptional". While other NSW officers felt she had not helped solve any cases. Sergeant Gae Crea and Detective Sergeant Damian Loone, state that she did not give us anything the police and the public didn't already know. Crea recounts "I've dealt with a lot of psychics, but no one has ever said, 'I can see where the body is buried and I'll take you there'" 

I'm of half a mind to remove the entire blurb.  It has been 3 years since this happened.  If this woman had 
any special ability and was assisting the police then surly she should have some media attention?  At least
her own Wiki page?  But no.  

So removed the uncited nonsense from the beginning paragraph on Sensing Murder's page.  A blue hyperlink caught my eye for one of the psychics that appeared on the show.  Haven't looked at it yet... what do you think we will find?  

Deb Webber


Well it is quite critical of her.

On 13 August 2004 Australian Channel 7 broadcast a show called "Caught on Hidden Camera", in which they asked Deb Webber to give readings to three people. The three asked to contact deceased relatives that did not exist. Deb Webber claimed she was able to 'contact' these people.

But following the citations which really there is only one you find this edit that leads to a skeptical site that is now defunk.  To be fair this reference to her being busted on TV cannot remain if there is no citation for it.  This is just going to have to wait for me or SOMEONE reading this to take care of.  


I think I will have to sleep on these edits, just too late right now to make good editing decisions.  I am not the only person out there in the skeptical community capable of making these edits.  If you are interested in taking this on, then simply do so.  If you want help or advise please comment and I will make sure you get the help you need.

We must be vigilant, we need your help.  Please please please make it a point to help edit.  If you lack these skills and do not want to learn them, then spend a few minutes stumbling through Wikipedia clicking on links.  If you find something suspicious please just post here.  Someone will take a serious look at it.  Shame on us for allowing this to continue.   

Checking Sources

I often here the excuse why "I don't edit Wikipedia anymore is because the paranormal people just change everything that I write and put up whatever links to support their point of view".  Well that might be a valid argument for someone who is looking for a reason to not edit.  If you follow that same logic then there seems to be little reason to clean up litter or graffiti as it is just going to occur again.

If this is genuinely happening then we need to know how to combat it.

Firstly you can't just change an article and expect it to remain that way, unless no one is watching the page (see watchlists blog) Or the changes you make needs to be well written and cited.  The paranormal point of view has every right to be mentioned when done correctly.  Wikipedia isn't trying to be balanced, but it does try to be neutral.

If a secondary source is written giving a positive slant to the article then good!  Lets put that in and cite it.  The reader should be able to follow the link (if given) and/or be able to go to the document (at a library or write to the publisher) and obtain the reference.

When done correctly the cite should be left for all to read, but if there is counter-evidence that refutes the cite then that should also be referenced.  And it should not come down to a argument, just state the facts of each article and try to remain neutral. 

This blog is about guerrilla skepticism, my bias is obvious, but I do support good research from both sides.  Not only is it important for the skeptical community to find critical thinking articles and insert them into paranormal Wikipedia pages, but it is also important to make sure that all cites are "real" and truly represent the original article in the secondary source. 

Working on the Psychic Detective page today I noticed these blurbs and thought "that's odd, I've never heard of a psychic ever finding a body, I should read that cite". 

However, psychics in Australia have successfully located the bodies of victims, the disappearance of whom were under investigation, on three occasions. In 1996 The body of Paula Brown, who had gone missing, was found after her family contacted Simon Turnbull and two other psychics. They indicated that she had been killed and told the family the location of the body, in Sydney at Port Botany. An initial search missed the body, a second search found the body 15 meters from where the initial indication of the location was.^[22]

^ Kerry Anne Kennerly interviewing Psychics on "Midday Show" 1996 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpSRtBml_rY

 <sup>So I tried to follow these links to discover the original article.  The link is broken to the youtube site, it says that the owner has removed their account.  So then I tried to find the article somewhere else on the Internet, I've discovered this woman Kerri-Anne Kennerley who is a Australian news-anchor who had been given the "Bent Spoon" award by the Australian Skeptics.  Just because I can't find the reference to check it does not mean it does not exist.  But in the mean time I'm removing the citation to the discussion page where I will note that someone needs to find a citation for this claim.  

Lets just say that there was a citation we could read for ourselves, and the article did interview some psychics that said that they found the bodies.  What then?  A psychic on a news interview claiming to have found a body is not newsworthy enough alone as evidence.  Otherwise anyone could get an interview saying that they have traveled to the moon and ate some of the cheese they found there and that is why they are over-weight.  Saying something like that does not then get added to the cheese or moon Wikipedia pages.  That isn't noteworthy.  

If it is a prominent psychic that has a Wikipedia page of their own, then maybe the reference will go up, but with counter evidence from another secondary site saying that they are nuts.  (I'm sure they wouldn't actually say nuts, but you know what I mean).  Both references would be in the same blurb on the page.


Here is another reference from the same Wikipedia page.</sup>  

In 2001, the body of Thomas Braun was located by Perth based clairvoyant Leanna Adams in Western Australia. Police had initially been unable to find the body. They later confirmed the remains to be his using DNA testing.   ^ Butler, Paul Milton "DNA test proves body was Braun's" Centralian Advocate, 23/2/2003 p3

This is a bit harder to check.  They have given us the reference but there is no on-line link to the article.  That does not make it incorrect but it does make it more difficult to find.  I often site books or magazines that are not on-line.  But it is easy to find the publisher's website and order a copy of the article, or possible to go to a library and find the reference (or order it).  It is unlikely to that would do this, but it is possible.

But this isn't a simple statement that is being made.  The editor is making a giant claim that this body was found by a psychic.  This should be front page news all over the world, proof of psychic ability?  Yes!  Yet I'm searching all over the place and can find no reference to it.   I can't even find a way of contacting the "Centralian Advocate".  I did manage to find this site news.com.au and I did ask them if they can provide me some way of contacting the Centrailian Advocate or finding the article (I gave them the cite, it should be easy for them to search for the reference).  In the mean time I am also going to remove the reference to Leanna Adams (who is so not-noteworthy that she does not have her own Wiki page).

The title of the above article is "DNA test proves body was Braun's" not "Psychic Leanna Adams finds body of missing hiker, Thomas Braun".  That alone should say something important about the reference. 

Leanna Adams psychic does turn up these articles.  Fails to find body of Peter Falconio. And this reference to finding the before mentioned Thomas Braun.

A Perth-based psychic, Leanna Adams, who led the family of a missing Alice Springs man to his body last year, was convinced Mr Falconio was buried near a creek bed near Barrow Creek, after she had visions of his murder, the newspaper said.

Again she was not even helpful enough in finding Thomas Braun that this pro-paranormal site "The Age" doesn't give her much more credit other than a quick mention of a "missing Alice Springs man".  According to this article a family member took Adams to the place where Braun was last seen and they found his body there.  Wow!

Does this belong on a Wikipedia page for psychic detectives?  It is under the heading "Prominent Cases".  I'm sure that if the psychic had indeed found Mr. Braun then that might be prominent.  But this reference is just not up there with any kind of real evidence.  So off the page it goes.  If some other editor wants to put it back in, my watchlist will tell me that it happened and I can take issue with it, unless the reference is really good.

Lastly, there is one more reference that needs checking on the psychic detective page.

In August, 2010, Aboriginal Elder Cheryl Carroll-Lagerwey claimed to have seen the location of a missing child, Kiesha Abrahams, in her dream. The missing child's disappearance was being investigated by police. She took them to a location where a dead body was found, however it was of an adult woman and not the body of the child.

1. ^ Arlington, Kim "Supernatural sleuths and the search for truth" The Sydney Morning Herald 30/12/2010, p4
2. ^ Cuneo, Clementine "Kiesha searches stumble on Corpse" The Daily Telegraph, August 13. URL = http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/kiesha-searchers-stumble-on-corpse/story-e6freuzi-1225904646931

Checked these sources and they are valid and correctly cited.  I'm not going to touch this reference at the moment.  I'm sure a case could be made that this is neither positive or negative psychic detective.  She made a claim, they followed up on it and indeed there was a body.  End of story. 

So in a nutshell, this blog is to remind anyone interested in editing Wikipedia for skeptical content that it isn't ONLY about inserting well written, well cited skeptical/scientific references.  Something just as important is to check existing sources, not only the pro-paranormal ones, but even references left by skeptical editors.  We can't be leaving litter or graffiti laying around either. 


P.S.
Found this interesting essay on Wikipedia today that was written by an editor.  I think his points are relevant to the psychic detective page.

  "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." 

Things "difficult to believe" are very important to make sure are cited.  That someone has graduated from a specific college with a certain degree in X year isn't really up there on the difficult to believe level.  If someone is claiming that they have regrown a limb, well then that needs to be referenced.  The source you are getting the info from also is important.  A tabloid newspaper might not be the best reference for celebrity updates that are likely truthful.  Thou I'm sure we can find exemptions, those would be further backed up by more reputable sources as the story breaks into the mainstream.

Also I want to add that the additions to the psychic detective page are all recent.  And probably are there because of a call out I made to the paranormal community to bring references to the article.  Here is the discussion thus far. 

I've just added a bit more Australian content, as psychics in Australia have located at least three bodies as far as my research shows. Like elsewhere, police in Australia do not seem to like to admit to officially using psychics, but in fact they actually do on occasion. In particularly NSW Police, a number of whom have sought advice from Debbie Malone. Interesting stuff, and wouldn't have believed she actually does as much as she does until I read some of these articles.... and I'm naturally a skeptic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, your citation was already in use on this page, so I used the multiple reference tag for it. By the way, I'd like to consolidate this whole section of the article as I see the same thing being said multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Farquhar (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the articles below as there is no citation to the first paragraph and the second is not re searchable. If you would like me to give more detail why these articles are not noteworthy I will elaborate when asked. Sgerbic (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Psychic Detectives

As more and more people get turned onto the idea of editing Wikipedia for skeptical content they ask me "what should I do?"

My advise is always the same.  Open a Wikipedia account (Wiki Commons if you are going to upload pictures) and read my entire blog.  Then pick something that interests you and get started.  Ask for feedback if you feel you need it.  Then comment here on the blog letting us know what your working on. 

Ben Radford and I are on the same mindset of a page that badly needs help.  Psychic Detectives (in my opinion the lowest of the woo people).  I remember reading an article in SI ages ago about the best evidence for a actual "solved" case using psychics.  I didn't know (at that time) any of the parties concerned, but some time has passed and I'm familiar with all the players now.  The investigator of that article was Ben. 

At TAM9 at the CFI table they were giving away free copies of SI, one issue was this one from March/April 2010.  I snagged it and kept trying to read it at the IIG table when I wasn't talking to people.  I never got more than a couple sentences into the article when I had to put it back down.  To make a long story short (too late) I did not come home with that issue, nor can I find the one I had at home and it isn't on-line.

So I'm asking for help.  I can't update this site without having access to articles.  That issue was totally awesome with references to Sylvia Browne and the "best case for psychic detectives" in it.

When you look at the psychic detective page you will see how pathetic it actually is.  Badly sourced for something that we could easily fix.  It does not generate a lot of hits (only 493 in June 2011) but we don't know who these people are, they might be total believers or maybe fence sitters accessing this page.  It does not matter, this page is in the public's eye and needs attention.

Besides, once the blurbs are written for this page, we can take the citations and blurbs and leave them on all the mentioned psychic pages.  Sylvia Browne included.  Spread the knowledge.

Please help.

Carla Baron & Chip Coffey on Wikipedia

Wikipedia has a general rule of notability for all its articles, and I think that is pretty awesome. We don't want everyone with a page clouding the Wikisphere. But I ran across this topic a couple weeks ago when the Rational Skepticism page was discussing whether or not to delete a page for Chip Coffey the "psychic medium" that appears on the TV shows Paranormal State and Psychic Kids (which is in my opinion the latter is another form of child abuse).

Looking at his page you will find that it is almost empty of anything but his picture. I can see why it is on the hit list for deletion. Even on my little laptop when the entire page comes up on the screen and there is no need for me to scroll down, the page is in trouble.

Editors were going back and forth on a discussion page about deleting or not, and I hadn't really thought about it before. Part of me says "Yeah! Delete the SOB he isn't relevant, even his fans aren't keeping up his page" and the more rational side of me says "You know, if people are looking for information on Chip Coffey where would they turn to? His personal website? What are the chances that page would have any skepticism on it? True they might check out this blog by Mark Edward, but then again think about the Goldilocks affect and it might be too negative for a first-time researcher. We need to find the happy medium (get it? Find the medium...LOL...sorry) and as I keep preaching, that would be Wikipedia.

So today I receive this link via Jim Underdown from CFI and the IIG about Clara Baron in the news again. The author Benjamin Radford who is with CFI writes about the missing person Holly Bobo and how psychic (grief vampires) only confuse things and waste police time. Jim was letting me know that the IIG was referenced in the article as they did an extensive investigation into the claims of Clara Baron.

Side note to people learning how to do Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: I have discovered that not everyone is getting the idea of making one reference from one source and putting it everywhere you can. Even intelligent people like Underdown have not grasped this idea...you have to think big and use the limited amount of time you have to make the biggest impact you can. Not only can we "tag" the IIG Wikipedia page about this article (like the Woo are going to go there for information) but we can also "tag" Clara Baron's page, the psychic page, even check if there is a page for Holly Bobo and on and on as many places you can think of. Just change the reference you leave to make sure it fits in the article, so it won't get deleted and will look relevant.

So here we are on Carla Baron's Wikipedia page. First thing we notice is that she isn't note worthy enough to have her own page. All references to her go to the show Haunted Evidence. That's pretty sad, if she was such a hotshot she thinks she is and she has solved all kinds of missing person cases (like Natalee Holloway case) she would be on the front page of Wikipedia, hell she would be the front page of every newspaper AND win the Nobel Prize for physics not to mention CNN. But what we find here is a half-ass stub on Wikipedia. A quick glance on the "discussion" page behind the normal article shows that no one is talking there. This is low low priority in editors minds.

When I first started doing Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia I put up a tiny one sentence on Haunting Evidence directing people to the IIG page as well as to the article they wrote of the investigation. Well now its been a year and I have learned a lot. The page needs some major Guerrilla Skepticism.

My first reference I placed under "Skeptical Episode Reviews" right next to the links to the Bad Psychic podcasts. Woopie! Pretty funny even as bad as this area is the IIG West website gets 2-3 hits each month directly from her Wikipedia page. I know because I am always looking at these numbers analyzing if Wikipedia is bringing hits to our page from Wikipedia.

So lets start on the revision. It should be bigger and a bit more aggressive while still remaining neutral and factual. We need a better worded section for criticism as well as expanding the verbiage from the IIG article, but we need to quote the Radford article too. If I have time I think I should listen to the two podcasts and glean a quote or two from them as well.

First the IIG reference.

OLD Reference:
"The Independent Investigative Group [[IIG]] investigates claims by "psychic detective" Carla Baron, and discovers no evidence that she assisted the police in any of the 14 cases she claims to have worked on. [[IIG]] lead investigator, Owen Hammer." (citation that is not linked to the article on www.iigwest.org)

New Reference: The Independent Investigative Group IIG looked into 14 cases Carla Baron claims to have assisted detectives on, including JonBenét Ramsey, Elizabeth Smart and Nicole Brown Simpson. In all 14 cases the IIG contacted the police (or in the case of Nicole Simpson, they received an email from Denise Brown) all mostly saying the same things, "we have never heard of this person" or "the information provided (by Baron) did not produce any new leads in the investigation". IIG's conclusion is that she has never provided any help in any investigation, and her claims stating such are unsubstantiated. The IIG feels that because humans are basically compassionate we have invented forensic science as well as Amber Alert and websites such as NCMEC to really help support victims of crimes. Psychic detectives like Carla Baron might claim compassion but are essentially paid agents with book sales, TV shows, lectures and private readings. Why are they needed when they cannot show one single case of evidence proving they have been helpful? (linked to IIG west report on the web and also to Skeptical Inquirer article that isn't linked)

While re-reading the IIG investigation article I noticed that there are two references to Carla Baron in the news (about her failures) so one at a time I'm researched these and put them on her Wiki page. The first one is from Amanda Tusing who was murdered in 2000. I wrote a blurb quoting the article saying that Baron in 2004 did not provide any useful information but a first name that did not check out. I have followed up with another article to show that in 2010 Amanda Tusing's murderer has still not been found. A lot of help Baron did there, I need to find a neutral way of stating all this while hitting home that Baron wasn't helpful.

Lets try this on: In 2004 Carla Baron was approached by Susan Tusing, the mother of slain murder victim Amanda Tusing who had been found murdered in June 2000. Baron gave detectives the first name of the killer. Detective Jack McCann states "we talked to the name and came up with several other people (with the same name) and nothing came up." As of 2010 the murderer of Amanda Tusing has not been found. (I cited two news websites with proof)

If anyone can improve this blurb please do so. I would love to state something about Baron failing to provide any help, but if I do it isn't Wiki neutral. I suppose it is implied when I mention that 6 years after Baron's help the case still isn't solved.

Here is another reference I found to Carla Baron on the IIG investigation page. Here is how it appears on Baron's Wiki page. March 2003 Svelana Aronov's body was found in New York's Upper East River. Family and friends consulted Carla Baron by email who stated that Svelana was fleeing an "obsessed kidnapper" and jumped into the freezing waters to escape. Police at the 19th Precinct could not confirm Barons statement that she had a "lengthy conversation with a detective." A friend that reached out to Baron and other psychic detectives said they (psychics) only yielded "aggravation". Close friends and family members now say they "distrust Barton who they say 'provided no useful insights and demanded media attention from the start.'" The New York medical examiner now claims that it was probably suicide.

And now on to the article that Jim Underdown sent me. This is from Ben Radford concerning the search for Holly Bobo who went missing April 13, 2011.

Here is what her site now says...

"April 13, 2011, 20 year old nursing student Holly Bobo goes missing from her home in Tennessee. Carla Baron was initially contacted by a friend of the family and Baron claims to have offered her services for free but the family refused to consult with her. On Baron's personal website she states that one condition she imposed on the family is that she is to be the only psychic officially working the case. When the family rejected her offer for help Baron stated "(the family) chose not to seek her information on Holly's death on the advice of the police, who, Baron believes, were "terrified to hear what I might have to say" about the abduction. The response to this from Baron's website, “This, my friends, is yet another “control” tactic deployed by the infinite ‘powers-that-be’ within gov’t jurisdiction to let all of us (a.k.a., the ‘public’) know –Who’s really running the show. Let’s not let anyone steal their proverbial thunder, shall we?".

Skeptic investigator Ben Radford writing for Discovery News states that the police and the family probably decided not to seek out her help because psychic detectives have a "zero track record of success". While some psychics may be well-intended they do waste the police's time. Radford concludes, "Despite the efforts of dozens of psychics over two months, Bobo remains missing, the case remains unsolved."

So now that I'm done I reread Haunting Evidence's Wiki page I realize that there is more in the criticism area than in the body of the article. Will someone notice and come back to edit it out? I have the page on my "watch list" and if there are ANY changes I will be notified. My feeling is that there is almost no one that cares what happens on that page. The main contention might be that most of the info on that page refers to Carla Barton and not the TV show as it was intended. So maybe Carla needs her own page? I'm cool with that. Where else would we be able to add all this negative facts? I doubt she would be open to it on her personal website. LOL

So now where to place these references? I will excited to watch the www.iigwest.org stats to see if we improve on the 2 referrals from her page every month. Maybe 5? Every hit is probably someone that is pro-psychic and likely never heard of skepticism. Let them do their own research and hopefully they will begin to change their mind.


















http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunting_Evidence