• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Fraudulent Psychics & Mediums

Coincidentally, I was watching an episode of 60s sitcom Car 54, Where Are You? today which took psychics as its subject. The tone was sceptical as the mediums were a gang of crooks, but the thought mechanisms that made the characters get fooled by them showed things haven't changed much since 1962. Very funny episode, but for such a silly comedy pretty perceptive too.
 
Sylvia Browne: Dead Psychic's Legacy Riddled With Failed Predictions, Fraud
The Huffington Post | By David Moye
Posted: 11/21/2013 2:14 pm EST | Updated: 11/21/2013 3:51 pm EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/2 ... 17470.html

When celebrity psychic Sylvia Browne died Nov. 20 at the age of 77, it marked the end of a career of immense fame marked by inaccurate predictions -- including one she made about her own death.

In May 2003, Browne predicted to Larry King that she would die when she was 88. She was off by 11 years.

Browne rose to fame in part because of her frequent appearances on the Montel Williams Show between 1991 and 2008, where she would claim to speak to the dead and offer information about missing people.

One of her most infamous predictions came in 2004, when she told Louwana Miller, the mother of Amanda Berry, that her kidnapped daughter was dead.

“She’s not alive, honey,” Browne said at the time, according to NBC affiliate WKYC's report on the segment. “Your daughter’s not the kind who wouldn’t call.”

In May, it was discovered that Berry was still alive and had been held captive by Ariel Castro for nearly a decade. Miller died in 2006 and was not alive to hear the good news -- or the news that she was exploited by Browne.

Browne responded to media questions with a prepared statement that included this line: "Only God is right all the time."


Although Browne claimed to have a psychic success rate between 87-to-90 percent, a 2010 analysis of of 115 predictions she made on "The Montel Williams Show" by Skeptical Inquirer magazine put her success rate at zero.

In some cases, she charged a police department $400 for her services.

In 2002, Browne told the parents of missing 11-year-old Shawn Hornbeck on the Montel Williams Show that the child was dead and kidnapped by a dark-skinned man with dreadlocks.

Hornbeck was found alive in 2007 and his accused kidnapper, Michael Devlin, was Caucasian and short-haired. Hornbeck's stepfather, Craig Akers, told Anderson Cooper that Browne offered to do a more extensive psychic reading off-camera for $700. She denied the claim.

When she was asked about her inaccurate prediction, she responded with the same sentence, "Only God is right all the time."

Browne's behavior was criticized by many, including The Amazing Kreskin, a mentalist who has done hundreds of performance art shows similar to magic for more than 40 years.

Kreskin said he has helped the police with 84 crime cases, but acknowledges that he was only helpful one-third of the time.

"I can help potential witnesses uncover information they didn't realize they had," Kreskin told The Huffington Post in May.

He also said that any mentalist, psychic or medium who suggests someone is dead without physical evidence is on shaky ethical ground.

"It's the height of irresponsibility and it indirectly aids the criminal because the people who believe the psychic may have less of a reason to continue to search for the victim," he said.

Failed predictions weren't Browne's only legacy. In 1992, she and her then husband, Kenzil Dalzell Brown, were indicted on several charges of investment fraud and grand theft.

She eventually pleaded no contest to securities fraud and was indicted on grand larceny.

D.J. Grothe, of the James Randi Educational Foundation, an organization that works to stop paranormal and pseudoscientific frauds, has long criticized Browne's activities, but sent out condolences to her family.

"No one celebrates her death, but skeptics do criticize how she lived. Her dismal track record at predictions -- she confidently predicted she would die at 88, not 77, for instance -- would only be laughable if they did not hurt so many people," he said by email. "The number of people she hurt with her pretend supernatural abilities is nearly as high as the number of her failed predictions. It is sad that it took death to stop Sylvia Browne."

Psychic Craig Weiler said Browne's memory in his community will have mixed reviews.

"Some of the people in the intellectual community who lean toward the psychic side of things did not think much of her," he told HuffPost. "But in order for a psychic to rise to the level of fame she did, they have to be good. In the beginning, she had to be good enough to distinguish herself from the others.

"That said, people are complicated. Skeptics aren't all evil and she's not all good."

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly quoted Craig Weiler as saying "Some of the people in the psychic community who lean toward the intellectual side of things did not think much of her."
 
I was going to post this in the RIP thread. Same link too, how spooky.

Her death has also been reported elsewhere with varying degrees of contempt. :lol:
 
Should have seen it coming.

Derek Acorah charged after Southport car crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-25291231

Derek Acorah is best known for the Living TV show Most Haunted

A 63-year-old TV psychic has been charged with careless driving following a car crash in Merseyside.

Derek Johnson, widely known as Derek Acorah, was driving a Nissan GT that was in collision with a Ford Ka in Southport, on Saturday.

The 52-year-old Ka driver and her passenger, a man aged 21, were taken to hospital with "whiplash-type" injuries.

Mr Johnson, who was not injured, was bailed and is due to appear at Sefton Magistrates' Court on 30 December.

Merseyside Police said he has also been charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis, following the crash in Scarisbrick New Road.

Mr Johnson, of Scarisbrick, Southport, is best known for his work on the Living TV show Most Haunted.
 
This'll come back to haunt him time after time.
 
"Derek Johnson, widely known as Derek Acorah, was driving a Nissan GT that was in collision with a Ford Ka in Southport, on Saturday."

Appropriate really:

ka n

(Myth & Legend / Non-European Myth & Legend) (in ancient Egypt)
an attendant spirit supposedly dwelling as a vital force in a man or statue

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ka

A word well-known to readers of Dennis Wheately! ;)
"The Ka of Gifford Hillary"
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1160 ... rd_Hillary
 
Sally Morgan has a bad night in 'Boro...

Sally came to Middlesbrough on Friday night and her show started off very well. Even though she was getting the vast majority of what she was saying wrong the audience did not seem to mind and seemed to be having a good time. The point at which the audience became disillusioned with the performance was quite specific. One aspect of the show is that audience members can submit photographs of dead loved ones, in the hope that Sally will select theirs, and give a psychic reading from it. Sally pulled out of a box on stage one of these pictures. She held the picture up to the camera and it was projected on the large screen behind her. The picture was of a middle-aged woman and by the clothes she was wearing and the quality of the image, I guessed it was taken some time in the 1990s. Sally immediately began to get communications from beyond the grave from a man holding a baby named Annabel……or was it Becky. Noticing that no one in the audience was responding, Sally asked the person who submitted the photo to stand up. A rather small chunky woman at the centre of the hall stood up and Sally once again began to get messages from the afterlife. She was informed that this man and baby were somehow linked to the lady in the picture. However the woman in the audience (who was now also projected behind Sally) disagreed and started to look increasingly confused as, presumably, nothing Sally was saying made any sense to her. Sally then decided to flat out ask her if the woman in the picture had any children who passed and, when informed that that she hadn’t, responded by saying “I will leave that then”.

Sally then became in direct contact with the woman in the photo who began to tell her that there was a lot of confusion around her death and that she felt it was very very quick. She later went on to say that the day Wednesday has a specific link to her death and that she either died on a Wednesday or was taken ill that day. As the woman in the audience was not responding to any thing Sally was saying, she decided to ask how the woman in the photo was related to her. It turns out the woman in the audience got the whole concept of submitting a picture of someone you wanted to talk to from the afterlife completely wrong – and for some unknown reason submitted a younger picture of herself.

The hall erupted in laughter, which quickly changed into disapproving mumbles that lasted the rest of the night. No matter how hard Sally tried, she was unable to get the audience back, who were becoming increasingly disgruntled with the number of ‘misses’ she was getting. Not only that, but the audience seemed to become more restrained when Sally was asking them questions. I also don’t think that they reacted well to some of the particularly offensive scenarios Sally was recreating. One involved her re-enacting a dead man flushing narcotics down a toilet to his immediate family, whilst repeatedly saying “flush it down”. Another was when she was talking to a teenage girl whose boyfriend had recently committed suicide by hanging himself. Sally told the girl that she can feel him hitting her leg and that he was, infact, re-enacting swinging against a door as he was committing suicide.

I now think that the vast majority of people who walked out of Middlesbrough town hall that night feel as i do – that someone who is psychic should know if the person they are talking to is dead or not and that it’s quite a messed up thing for a person to pretend that they are in contact with a dead family member.
http://mylespower.co.uk/2014/05/18/a-ra ... lesbrough/
 
Busted! More seriously, that third paragraph is horrible, what terrible things for her to make up.
 
After watching some TV show about a guy who takes away haunted furniture, it came to me....

MY POSSESSED PET.

A bit like Supernanny and the naughty step but with full projectile pet vomit.
And hey...people love animals eh?

'Pucky started crawling across the ceiling speaking Aramaic'.

'Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh'
 
I raised the Sally Morgan thing on Facebook t'other day, as she came to my home town last year but I can't find anyone who'll admit to paying to see her. :lol:

Well, one person did, a cousin of mine. The cousin was NOT impressed either. :laughing:

I'll get her to explain whth the problem was. We could do with a good laugh. ;)
 
Video: Death threats for sceptic who leafleted at Sally Morgan "psychic" show

When Mark Tilbrook politely and peacefully distributed leaflets at venues where "psychic" Sally Morgan was performing, her son and husband threatened to beat him up (and even to have him murdered), uttered homophobic and racist slurs, and, eventually, served him with a legal threat.

Mr Tilbrook writes,

As I explained in the Guardian on 7 October, 2014, I decided earlier this year to leaflet outside various psychic stage shows, encouraging members of the audience to ask themselves questions about psychic ability. My first three visits were to shows by Sally Morgan, and on each occasion her husband John Morgan approached me. I found him to be threatening and abusive.

After being threatened during my first encounter with John Morgan, I felt it necessary to have a camera with me when leafleting, to record events and provide evidence of the threats I faced. This footage shows what happened on the third occasion, at the Shaw Theatre in London on April 2, 2014. I’ve subtitled the video as accurately as I can make out, and you can make up your mind about his behaviour after seeing it for yourself.

None of this has stopped me from being determined to continue leafleting at psychic stage shows. This is why I have been working with the Good Thinking Society to hand out more leaflets at psychic shows throughout October 2014. You can find out about 'Psychic Awareness Month' at the Good Thinking website.
http://boingboing.net/2014/10/10/video- ... bulli.html
 
escargot1 said:
Well, one person did, a cousin of mine. The cousin was NOT impressed either. :laughing:

I'll get her to explain whth the problem was. We could do with a good laugh. ;)

Did you get anywhere? Mind you, it might be something your cousin won't thank you for raising :)
 
I'm going straight round there now.
 
Anyone know anything about this?


Post-Miami Vice Philip Michael Thomas shilling for a psychic hotline. Was it wrapped up in controversy, as I suspect?
 
This seems to be the most appropriate thread for this story ...

Psychic paid $3.5 million for exorcisms gets prison for evading U.S. taxes
A self-proclaimed psychic was sentenced on Wednesday to 26 months in prison after admitting that she tried to avoid paying taxes on over $3.5 million that she received from an elderly Massachusetts woman seeking to cleanse herself of demons.

Sally Ann Johnson, 41, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston, who said the evidence suggested the psychic took advantage of the Martha’s Vineyard resident as the woman began to suffer from dementia.

“There is a strong inference of fraud here,” Casper said.

She ordered Johnson to repay the woman nearly $3.57 million she received from 2007 to 2014 and to pay $725,912 in restitution to the U.S. government for the taxes she avoided paying.

Johnson, who never passed the second grade and calls herself a Romani “spiritual consultant,” pleaded guilty in October to trying to impede the administration of tax laws. In court, she apologized for that conduct. ...

Prosecutors said that Johnson, who has lived in Florida and also goes by Angela Johnson, has operated a small collection of businesses that offer psychic or spiritual services.

Prosecutors contended Johnson employed techniques commonly used by fraudulent fortune-tellers who prey on vulnerable and incapacitated people and cultivated a sense of dependence in the elderly woman. ...


The unnamed woman was already prone to believe in the presence of evil spirits, prosecutors said. They said that as her dementia advanced, the woman attributed her symptoms to demonic possession, which she hoped Johnson could alleviate.

To evade the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny, Johnson used an alias, directed the woman to wire payments to three different bank accounts and withdrew large sums of cash to conceal the money’s source, prosecutors said.

She also accrued charges on a credit card held in the elderly woman’s name, spending $20,000 on entertainment and jewelry alone, prosecutors said.

FULL STORY: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ts-prison-for-evading-u-s-taxes-idUSKBN1F633N
 
For some reason I'm against people who lie,cheat, and steal. If you can prove that churches are conning people, all the power to ya.

Let's consider the sort of evangelist who runs a mega-church, or a touring rally circuit, where he preaches that he has the power to heal by faith and that through him the LORD can heal anything, all you have to do is believe. And, of course, donate dollars. Lots of dollars. in this case the practitioner is communicating what he claims to have received from The Other Side, which we dignify as religion. would this be a case where actions could be brought for fraud on a grand scale? (It's interesting that while people have allegedly walked again and thrown away crutches and wheelchairs - nicely visually spectacular - I don't recall a Christian faith-healer ever restoring lost teeth, a missing limb, or giving the formerly bald a full head of hair - even though everything is possible in the name of the LORD)... those bloody awful televangelists who pack every hour full of twenty minutes of praise and forty minutes of moral blackmail in search of money...
 
There's an elderly friend who routinely asked me to look after his finances, ensure his bank accounts are OK, to make odd little online purchases for him on his credit cards, et c (he has no computer). I do this gladly. but all the time - especially at a time of real personal money constraints - there was the realisation of how easy it would have been to take this trusting old chap for thousands - without him even noticing. It's a sort of ethical litmus test - the challenge being thrown down from somewhere that says "how honest are you? Really? When it comes to the crunch?"


And when C said to me "you know, you're doing this for me and I appreciate it. While you've got my credit cards, and you know all the numbers,get something for yourself. As a thank-you."

That's when I did the little scream inside and said "Please. Don't. Really. don't."

I'd just been given what could have been interpreted as an open cheque from a kindly old man who trusted me completely. With a lot in the bank.

I'm not saying this because I want applause or a pat on the back or anything. I'm saying this because I can perhaps see, from this experience, how the sort of situation might come about where somebody ends up in court accused of taking a confused elderly person for five or six-figure sums. There might be good intentions at first and no initial intent to defraud. But take people who might have a Walter Mitty streak in them to begin with, and the sort of hazy sense of where the necessary boundaries are - let's say somebody who has the warm fuzzy feeling that they're a psychic and has just enough success to get a word-of-mouth. There might be no obvious intention to defraud - at first - but then folie a deux and a mutual dependency sets in, the offer is made to "get something nice for yourself", and before you know it... weakness, perhaps, rather than malice.

For me? In the end I said to C - look. Let's put a limit on it. You want to give me something as a thank-you. You'd feel bad if you didn't. I appreciate that. Let's agree no more than £25, and no more than twice a year? Birthday and Chrsitmas, perhaps? i'll jot it down in writing, so we both know where we stand and there's a written record?"

Worked out OK. But a different and less scrupulous me (who I know exists cackling in a dark corner of my psyche) might have...
 
Let's consider the sort of evangelist who runs a mega-church, or a touring rally circuit, where he preaches that he has the power to heal by faith and that through him the LORD can heal anything, all you have to do is believe. And, of course, donate dollars. Lots of dollars. in this case the practitioner is communicating what he claims to have received from The Other Side, which we dignify as religion. would this be a case where actions could be brought for fraud on a grand scale? (It's interesting that while people have allegedly walked again and thrown away crutches and wheelchairs - nicely visually spectacular - I don't recall a Christian faith-healer ever restoring lost teeth, a missing limb, or giving the formerly bald a full head of hair - even though everything is possible in the name of the LORD)... those bloody awful televangelists who pack every hour full of twenty minutes of praise and forty minutes of moral blackmail in search of money...


didn't have to look far. Here's something verging on a Christian con at all levels, one predicated on claiming supernatural powers and abilities, and found in this very forum:

http://forum.forteantimes.com/index...bethel-school-of-supernatural-ministry.63442/
 
There's fraud, and then there's a persistent pattern of fraud ...

Deja vu: Convicted fraudster pleads in $340K ‘psychic’ case
A Maryland woman who claims to be a psychic has been convicted of scamming people — again. ...

Gina Marie Marks, who worked under the name Natalie Miller, pleaded guilty Friday to multiple counts of felony theft for stealing $340,000 from five people who sought help with their troubles.

Marks said on Friday in court that she would return all the payments she received, but maintained her services are real. Police learned of Marks in 2016 when a woman paid Marks for love spells, but got suspicious when the charges began approaching $80,000.

Marks was arrested at the Miami International Airport in Florida and faces up to six years in prison.

Marks pleaded no contest and guilty to similar charges in 2009 and 2010 in Florida.

SOURCE: https://apnews.com/aa9e0f91a30246c5...cted-fraudster-pleads-in-$340K-'psychic'-case

 
There's an elderly friend who routinely asked me to look after his finances, ensure his bank accounts are OK, to make odd little online purchases for him on his credit cards, et c (he has no computer). I do this gladly. but all the time - especially at a time of real personal money constraints - there was the realisation of how easy it would have been to take this trusting old chap for thousands - without him even noticing. It's a sort of ethical litmus test - the challenge being thrown down from somewhere that says "how honest are you? Really? When it comes to the crunch?"


And when C said to me "you know, you're doing this for me and I appreciate it. While you've got my credit cards, and you know all the numbers,get something for yourself. As a thank-you."

That's when I did the little scream inside and said "Please. Don't. Really. don't."

I'd just been given what could have been interpreted as an open cheque from a kindly old man who trusted me completely. With a lot in the bank.

I'm not saying this because I want applause or a pat on the back or anything. I'm saying this because I can perhaps see, from this experience, how the sort of situation might come about where somebody ends up in court accused of taking a confused elderly person for five or six-figure sums. There might be good intentions at first and no initial intent to defraud. But take people who might have a Walter Mitty streak in them to begin with, and the sort of hazy sense of where the necessary boundaries are - let's say somebody who has the warm fuzzy feeling that they're a psychic and has just enough success to get a word-of-mouth. There might be no obvious intention to defraud - at first - but then folie a deux and a mutual dependency sets in, the offer is made to "get something nice for yourself", and before you know it... weakness, perhaps, rather than malice.

For me? In the end I said to C - look. Let's put a limit on it. You want to give me something as a thank-you. You'd feel bad if you didn't. I appreciate that. Let's agree no more than £25, and no more than twice a year? Birthday and Chrsitmas, perhaps? i'll jot it down in writing, so we both know where we stand and there's a written record?"

Worked out OK. But a different and less scrupulous me (who I know exists cackling in a dark corner of my psyche) might have...

That is a perceptive and thought provoking post, thank you.

Although I do not believe in any kind of psychic, in the absence of evidence, I do recognise a qualitative difference between the cynical fraudster and the sincere but misguided person who believes that they have special powers.

A person who believes they have psychic powers may be vulnerable, suggestible, easily led (call it what you will) and move incrementally from "party trick" to "helping people out" to doing it for "pin money" to making ever more ambitious claims, and eventually get themselves in deeper than they realise.

I spent 10 years investigating insurance fraud. In many cases, people started off with a genuine sense of entitlement, believing that although they did not have the cover in place, they were surely entitled to something as the incident itself was genuine. They had suffered a genuine loss but distorted the circumstances in an effort to bring the incident within the scope of the cover they had paid for.

When challenged, some would back down, but others would persist, and their stories would grow out of control until they were in too deep. Where I was satisfied that someone had been naive rather than cynically dishonest, I always tried to give them a ladder to climb down.

A Leicester University study showed that, based on their own assessment via answers to a survey, 10% of people would always be honest no matter what, 10% would always be dishonest if the situation called for it, and the middle 80% admitted that they would be dishonest in some circumstances, presumably depending on the risk of detection, the likely penalty, and the likely gain. Someone once said, "man is a rationalising animal" and I have seen so many cases of people rationalising their decision to do or say something that deep down they know is wrong. I dare say that applies to a certain percentage of so called psychics too/
 
That is a perceptive and thought provoking post, thank you.

Although I do not believe in any kind of psychic, in the absence of evidence, I do recognise a qualitative difference between the cynical fraudster and the sincere but misguided person who believes that they have special powers.

A person who believes they have psychic powers may be vulnerable, suggestible, easily led (call it what you will) and move incrementally from "party trick" to "helping people out" to doing it for "pin money" to making ever more ambitious claims, and eventually get themselves in deeper than they realise.

I spent 10 years investigating insurance fraud. In many cases, people started off with a genuine sense of entitlement, believing that although they did not have the cover in place, they were surely entitled to something as the incident itself was genuine. They had suffered a genuine loss but distorted the circumstances in an effort to bring the incident within the scope of the cover they had paid for.

When challenged, some would back down, but others would persist, and their stories would grow out of control until they were in too deep. Where I was satisfied that someone had been naive rather than cynically dishonest, I always tried to give them a ladder to climb down.

A Leicester University study showed that, based on their own assessment via answers to a survey, 10% of people would always be honest no matter what, 10% would always be dishonest if the situation called for it, and the middle 80% admitted that they would be dishonest in some circumstances, presumably depending on the risk of detection, the likely penalty, and the likely gain. Someone once said, "man is a rationalising animal" and I have seen so many cases of people rationalising their decision to do or say something that deep down they know is wrong. I dare say that applies to a certain percentage of so called psychics too/
Funny that I also investigated insurance fraud for decades and have exactly the opposite view to you of psychics as a result of my experiences over the years.:)
 
Back
Top