|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
Psychics and the LAPD
Psychics and the LAPD
PSYCHICS AND THE L.A. POLICE DEPARTMENT.
By Al Seckel
Over the years, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has
received numerous offers of assistance from psychics and others
claiming to have extrasensory perception. Along with these
offers are numerous reports in the media, which claim that
psychics have been employed by the LAPD and have provided
information useful in major crime investigations.
A couple of years ago I began an investigation to find out if
the LAPD does in fact employ or use psychics, and, if so,
if they have been helpful in the investigation of crimes.
I was referred to two police studies concerning the use of
psychics in the investigation of major crimes by Dr. Martin
Reiser, Director of the Behavioral Sciences Services (LAPD), Dr.
Susan Saxe, Staff Psychologist (LAPD), and Detective Philip
Sartuche, Robbery-Homicide Division (LAPD). According to these
police studies attempts to substantiate the claims made in the
media with the police agencies mentioned were either
unsuccessful or met with only limited success.
The first LAPD research study to investigate the feasibility
of using psychic's information to aid in the identification and
apprehension of suspects began in 1979. The LAPD hoped
that if the psychics were successful that it would increase the
LAPD's effectiveness, save time, manpower, and funds.
Twelve psychics participated in the LAPD project. Eight of
the group were considered to be professional psychics, as they
either partially or wholly earned their livings by means of fees
for their psychic services. Four of the group were
considered nonprofessional psychics. The participants were
selected by D. Louise Ludwig, an academic psychologist from Los
Angeles City College, from those considered to be the most
reputable and able in the Los Angeles area who were
willing to participate.
Four crimes, two solved and two unsolved, were selected
by an investigator not involved in the research. No
information about the crimes was given to the project staff or to
the academic consultant. Of the unsolved cases, one contained
a detailed description of the suspect and the crime itself, and
no suspect information was available in the other. Physical
evidence from each of the four crimes was placed in sealed,
numbered envelopes. Each psychic was interviewed individually and
first asked to elicit information from the sealed envelopes.
Responses were tape-recorded. Then the psychic was asked to
open each envelope, look at and examine the evidence, and again
react to the unconcealed evidence. These responses were also
recorded verbatim.
Neither the psychics nor the psychologist-experimenter had
any prior knowledge of any of the cases or evidence.
This prevented the experimenter from unconsciously
influencing the participants. Data were grouped into the
following categories, which corresponded with the
information recorded on the original crime reports: crime(s)
committed, victim(s), suspect(s), physical description(s), and
crime location(s). Other information elicited from the
participants, but which could not in any case be verified,
included accessories to the crime, life-style of the victim
and/or suspect, and psychological traits of the victim and/or
suspect. However, as only 50% of the information provided by the
psychics was verifiable, the study focused only on these
verifiable criteria indicators.
In many instances, the psychics did not comment on all
categories, and often they did not specify in which
category specific information applied. Further, some of the
participants were extremely verbose, while others provided only
very sketchy responses.
The following response provided by one participant
illustrates the type of information that the researchers had
to evaluate against known facts:
"I get a man, black. I hear screaming, screaming. I am
running up stairs and down. My head? Someone bounces my head
on the wall or floor. I see trees -- a park? In the city, but
green. Did this person live there? What does the number 2
mean? I get a bad, bloody taste in my mouth. The names John or
Joseph or something like that. I am running on the street like a
crazy. This is a very serious crime. I can not hold the
envelope in my hand."
This response, though briefer than some, was
representative in its content of numerous responses of other
psychics. On verifiable items not specifically mentioned above,
there was little or no consistency among responses.
The conclusion of the 1979 LAPD study was that: The research
data does not support the contention that psychics can
provide significant additional information leading to the
solution of major crimes. The area of greatest accuracy had to
do with the sex of the suspect and sex of the victim. Some
degree of accuracy was also detected in the type of crime
committed. A common thread ran through many of the
psychics'responses. The most commonly repeated conception of
these crimes was that the victim was a female prostitute murdered
by a male, with drug involvement either by the victim, the
suspect, or both.
Many of the psychics believed these cases might have been
connected with the "Hillside Strangler," a highly publicized
case in the news at the time this study was conducted. However,
none of the crimes involved in the study was related to that
case.
Overall, little, if any, information was elicited from
the twelve psychic participants that would provide material
helpful in the investigation of the major crimes in
question. There was a low rate of inter-psychic congruence and
accuracy among the responses elicited in this research. The
report stated: "We are forced to conclude based on our results,
that the usefulness of psychics as an aid in criminal
investigation has not been validated."
Because of the continuing controversy about the usefulness of
psychics in crime investigations, the LAPD decided to do a
further study. This study, done in the following year (1980),
used two additional comparison groups that could provide
empirical reference points. The use of control groups would also
help clarify whether individuals not identified as psychic
can produce investigatively useful information.
Two teams of psychics, four in one group and eight in
the other, participated in the study. In addition, two
comparison (control) groups were used. The first control
group consisted of twelve homicide detectives who volunteered
to participate in the study. The second group consisted of
eleven volunteers who were representative of the general
student population. The two non-psychic groups were instructed
to take each piece of evidence and attempt to intuit or guess
characteristics of both the victim and suspect in each crime.
The data produced by the three groups differed markedly in
character and quantity. Most of the psychics generated lengthy
discourses with dramatic and confident-sounding statements.
Their accounts were also characterized by many direct perception
statements of the form "I now see such and such."
In contrast to the psychics's statements, those the
detective group produced were very terse and highly
qualified. The detectives clearly felt uncomfortable with the
instructions to rely on intuition and feelings.
The students appeared to feel slightly more at ease with the
task than did the detectives. Their statements tended to be
lists of information without any of the dramatic and ostensibly
sensory descriptions that characterized the psychics's data.
The conclusion of the 1980 study: "Since the psychic group
produced approximately ten times as much information as
either of the two comparison groups, it is more likely by
chance alone that their data would produce more "hits."
Despite this statistical advantage, the psychics were unable
to produce information that was significantly better than the
two comparison groups. It is important to note that no
information that would have been investigatively useful, such
as first and last names, license plate numbers, apartment house
locations, etc., was accurately produced by any of the subjects.
Statistically, the data fit a pattern that could be expected by
chance.
"The data provided no support for the belief that the
identified `sensitives' could produce investigatively
useful information. Additionally, the data also failed to
show that the psychics could produce any information
relating to the cases beyond a chance level of expectancy."
Evidence from this study was consistent with and
replicated the findings of the LAPD's earlier study.
Extending the results of these studies would indicate that the
use of psychics in the investigation of major crimes is
unlikely to produce investigatively useful information. Perhaps
the compelling manner in which self-identified "psychics" tend to
present their information may account for some of the positive
beliefs about psychic abilities in law enforcement.
Possibly, individuals listening to the productions of
"psychics" are persuaded more by the dramatic character of the
information produced rather than by its objective merit.
Has the LAPD changed its policy or views regarding the use of
psychics in the past five years? Not according to Dan Cook,
head of LAPD public relations. His comment was: "The LAPD has
not, does not, and will not use psychics in the investigation of
crimes. Period. If a psychic offers free information to us over
the phone, we will listen to them politely, but we do not take
them seriously. It is a waste of time."
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
