Some news stories report that police are “trying to locate” or “trying to identify” the hoaxer. Yet, the media hasn’t had any trouble finding and interviewing her.
Why hasn’t she been named, and brought in for questioning? If it were me I’d throw her ass in jail for making a false police report, harassment and lying to police. :mad: WTF?
WAG: They’re trying to figure out how to make charges stick that she somehow “tricked” them into doing a massive raid on a house on the basis of a “vision.” I’m also trying to figure out how they knew, without breaking into the place themselves, that she knew something about the inside of the house that only someone who’d been there would know - which is their cited reason for going there in the first place.
I mean, I can wait until my neighbors are gone on vacation and tell the cops that I had a vision of a drug deal gone wrong in their house, with 5 people shot execution-style and lined up on the Persian rug, but how are the cops going to know there’s a Persian rug without entering the home? 
Makes sense, but why hasn’t she been publicly named?
I saw the initial reports and did a double-take. They were acting on the tip of a psychic? I imagine/hope the police departments are so embarrassed that they’re hoping this will all go away. Are the people whose house was searched taking legal action against the state or the fraudulant tipster?
Fuck if I know. I suspect there may be legal issues involved with narcing out a tipster, even one this crappy.
News reports dated today STILL say police are “hunting for” the tipster. But…the media already found and interviewed her - yesterday.
The police found some blood on the front porch, which was enough to get a search warrant. Unfortunately, the police can’t exclude tips based on “psychic visions”, because that vision might be a cover for the tipster (or it could possibly be used by criminals to deflect suspicion)
If you call in your neighbor saying that your neighbor committed a crime, the police will investigate it, but they will need more than a tip to actually get in the house, no matter what you say. However, if they do get a search warrant that doesn’t net anything, and your neighbors suspect you of being behind the tip, you might be the next person to get a visit from the police. Better not do it if you’re already feuding with them.
As to why the Houston Chronicle can talk to her and the police can’t? Two reasons - she contacted the newspaper on the promise of anonymity, and according to the stories, she lives in the Texas panhandle - approximately 600 miles and a ten hour drive away from where the search was conducted.
People may talk to the media and not be willing to talk to the police.
They’ll probably keep saying that until the Police tell them different. The media can only report what they know – if the police don’t keep them up to date, they’ll continue reporting the most recent information until they get something new.
I have trouble with a police officer contnuing to invest any time on a case after hearing the word ‘vision’.
How did she describe the inside of the house? Was it in detail? Or what? Couldn’t it have been described as generally as a horoscope and have people think it was “accurate?”
Honestly, I can’t stand psychics and the people who believe in them or give them any credence. Here’s the gist of any crime psychic:
“The body will be found in a shallow grave” (really? What criminal trying to dispose of a body, would have time to dig anything more? Plus, do you know how LONG and difficult it is to dig a DEEP grave on your own?)
“It will be near a tree or wooded area.” (Again, as opposed to what? An open field? Where a perp could be spotted?)
“It will be near a body of water.” (vague terms like “near” are used. I could bury a body anywhere in my hometown and it will be 'near" a body of water.) (I live in New Orleans, btw)
So when I hear about police operating on tips from a psychic, I just immediately think “idiots.”
Why did you quote that part of Zyada’s post? You obviously failed to understand the point.
The police are following up on the information reported as the product of a “vision” not because they believe in clairvoyance, but because the claim of “visions” might merely be the way the informant makes passing the information along palatable to himself or herself.
Perhaps they don’t want to explain their involvement in a crime. Perhaps they weren’t the perpetrator, but have a need to emotionally distance themselves from the event.
Good police work means you don’t fail to follow leads, even when cloaked with mystical language, because you don’t want to suggest you believe in that stuff. Good police work means you figure out if the “vision” is panning out and investigate the crime and, if so, then worry about how the tipster really acquired the information.
Sorry if there was any confusion or mis-attribution of motive–I was typing/touching on a new tablet. I haven’t had a gadget like that for long, so highlighting, deleting, etc. are a bit clumsy.
I vehemently disagree with the notion that the police can’t exclude tips based on “psychic visions.” That they found probable cause for a search warrant beyond the initial tip is a different matter. I disagree that the police should have visited the house in the first place.
If the officer taking the call (or whatever the context is at the moment) has a reasonable inkling that the so-called vision is being concocted as a cover for phoning in a tip, than yes, wink-wink, proceed with the investigation or follow-up. However, I think it wholly demeaning of the profession and repugnant to rationality for *any *policeman *anywhere *under *any *circumstances to take seriously a tip based solely on a psychic vision. Again, if the officer has reason to believe that the vision is actually caused by non-supernatural circumstances, then that is completely outside the realm of offense–to the point that an officer’s mere hunch that the so-called psychic vision is just a cover (or has some other *rational *explanation) isn’t within what I’m decrying. However, if there is no other thing to go on, IMHO, any officer who acts on a psychic tip should not be a police officer.
While it is easy to play with fact patterns, if the victims of this hoax sued the town and there was no other corroboration, I would hope that the jury hands them the town’s psyche on a silver platter. Further, though it’s been several years since Con Law, I would hope that if they police found evidence of a crime during the search (say, pot plants in plain view), I would hope that any jurisdiction would hold the search invalid. It gets very thorny very quickly, but exceptions aside psychic visions should not form any basis for an investigation–full stop.
Your reaction is way over the top compared to the usual circumstance, however. Whether cops actually believe psychics is reasonably well surveyed. The reason cops follow tips by psychics is almost always precisely because they know that if the tip has any substance at all it is because the person is using the “psychic” cover for actual knowledge that they don’t want to admit to.
Further, the reason why it may appear otherwise is that popular media love the headline “Psychic tipoff leads to…”. The officer saying “actually we didn’t believe the tipster was psychic we just thought that may be a cover story” is buried in paragraph five.
That’s all well and good but almost completely irrelevant. Again, as stated multiple times above, if there is some reason for the cop to think the tip has any other basis than psychic powers, bully for them. Can I be any clearer about that?
But, over the top or not, a generalized practice of taking psychics seriously, or similarly a generalized practice of taking UFO sightings, lizard people, schizophrenic ramblings, demon possession or any other supernatural phenomena seriously is a dereliction of an officer’s duty.
From the top: if a cop has any rational reason to believe that aunt Edna’s vision of a plane crash has some validity other than aunt Edna’s habit of making predictions, no shit the tip should be investigated. But if all they have to go on is aunt Edna’s word that his Third Eye is seeing tired, hungry, thirsty, and naughty children in a house, then aunt Edna should be ignored. Taking supernatural claims seriously–as a general rule–because they might be cover for something else is absurd and, over the top or not, repugnant.
I understand your position, it’s perfectly clear. What I am saying is that it is you who is making an essentially irrelevant point, because there are virtually no examples of what you are complaining about. Rather, almost all situations involving cops and “psychics” are what you acknowledge there is no need to complain about.
Cool. For context, remember that most of this has been a clarification of “I have trouble with a police officer contnuing to invest any time on a case after hearing the word ‘vision’,” not a bashing of a particular point.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/10/national/main20070512.shtml
Newest story, another interview with the hoaxer, and still no arrest.
Earlier stories claimed that the cops were “poring over” transcripts of her 911 calls. Crazy bitch now denies ever saying anything about bodies. This should take all of 5 minutes to see who’s telling the truth. Yet…nothing. WTF is going on here?
The problem with your perspective is that the police are almost never going to have any idea what the real story is behind the “psychic”. Sure, if they know it’s Aunt Edna who is deaf as a post and in the nursing home, they might be able to ignore it. But most of the time it is basically an anonymous person calling in to a tip line. Which also gets the cranks who like yanking the police chains, and the delusional that think they are the ones who committed every crime that gets in the newspaper. It’s all chaff, and the police have to sort through the chaff to find the real tips.
As a default, anyone who calls in a tip because an invisible rabbit (Darko, Harvey, or otherwise) should not be given any credence.
The threadbare excuse that many people use ‘psychic vision’ to protect themselves is a bit silly. They’re doing it to avoid incriminating themselves? To protect anonymity? To avoid animosity of their victims after the fact?
While there are exceptions to everything, letting sky bunnies direct police resources is bad policy.