“I'm the biggest sceptic of all. I directed 8 out of the 16 Sensing Murder shows and was also one of the two associate producers. I am not sure if I believe the psychics communicate with the dead. I am more inclined to believe they have some kind of gift or savant inclination that enables them to see things or tune into passed events. I believe, in fact I know, the crew and production team don't cheat, and do not pass on information. [Elsewhere in his email, the director notes that camera crews are hired at short notice at the time of production, and have no other involvement in what is going on.] Nigel Latta ([a psychologist] whose expertise in profiling criminals and liars is indisputable) does not believe the psychics have studied up and retained information about every unsolved case in New Zealand . He was confident he could ascertain through the psychic's body language whether they were recounting previously learned facts. 

"I do not have Nigel's expertise in detecting body language - what I do have is a lot of experience interacting with the psychics. And based on my experience, I do not believe they cheat. They have no networks around them to help research; the psychics appearing on the programme have had or still have learning difficulties and in no way could be described as intellectuals. They are spontaneous, almost child-like people who do heartily believe in what they are doing. I have filmed hours and hours of readings and have been astounded at what has occurred. We as programme makers insist that we totally control the conditions in which the psychics do their readings as far as is humanly possible. Yes, we made errors in continuity when it came to editing, but I categorically refute that the team cheated. The one thing I can't get my head around from your point of view is: if they do cheat - how do they get access to police files? Even we as hardened media professionals have not been able to gain access to police files.”  

AGAINST ACCEPTING THIS STATEMENT:

A recent NZTV TWO “Eating Media Lunch” programme entitled “Sensing Bullshit” shows a sting operation by skeptics, where a single woman consults Deb, claiming to have had a dead husband. Deb duly communicates with the “dead husband” and also  provides information about a non-existent dog. Skeptic Bob Bruce says that “those who flock to Deb are easy targets.. for this scam” and feels that her behaviour is most immoral. View the YouTube clip here. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2zSRAjjjE8&NR=1> This second clip can also be viewed. It overlaps in content with the first. View here. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLI1zjrSoPk&eurl=http://www.throng.co.nz/sensing-murder >A sample trailer for “Sensing Murder”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1rgTisjtjg

ON THE OTHER HAND:

Let's agree that the sting operation shows Deb giving information about a non-existent husband. It looks bad for Deb. But we do have to consider other factors.. and how to do this reasonably dispassionately is a challenge. John L. Ateo (Sillybeliefs) is a passionate atheist, and is certain that Sensing Murder is a scam. (I wonder whether Ateo is a pseudonym.. it means Atheist in Italian.) Opposed to that view, in previous issues of this journal much evidence for survival of death has been given, and we do believe it to be possible for Deb to do what she claims to. 

What can we know reasonably for certain about what is going on in Sensing Murder? We can know
1. that when Deb is lied to, as in the sting operation, she comes up with apparently imaginary data. This either happens because she is making it up, or because as Deb said, all she can do as a psychic is to report what comes to mind. From that video clip the most that we can be sure of, is that Deb can be misled by what comes to mind, and therefore with Deb we should be cautious in taking everything she says as gospel.
2. On TV Deb is seen imparting numerous pieces of information, found only in police files. Should we not accept the director's question, “if they do cheat - how do they get access to police files? Even we as hardened media professionals have not been able to gain access to police files.” Remember that it is stated that all the information she is given is a picture of the victim, upside down on a table.
3. If one can't get access to confidential police files, then if the two psychics independently come up with  considerable nearly identical material confirming each other and material in police files, if we cannot reasonably demonstrate fraud on the part of the police, or the director, then the psychics are likely to be genuine.
4. Skeptics point to limited success as if it were proof that Deb and  fellow psychic Kelvin Cruikshank were somehow frauds.  But success is success.
5. The YouTube clip shows Deb, when lied to, reporting intuitions that seemingly have no basis at all in reality. We need to remember however, that what psychics do is report what comes to mind. Sometimes what they say corresponds with some reality, and sometimes it doesn't. The less nonsense, and the more stuff squaring with reality in some way, the better the psychic.
6.  In response to my email, John L. Ateo replied, “We don't accuse Latta of cheating because we have no evidence of such and I believe he is probably just naïve. [In "Sensing Bullshit" above an Authority is quoted suggesting that Latta is naive. Perhaps this Authority is Ateo.] The director is a different story. The production team definitely cheated to enhance the psychics' skills, but whether the basic info was obtained through true psychic powers, outright cheating or naivety on the part of the production team can't be determined without more information. (Blatant cheating by the production team is far more obvious in the other two episodes we analysed than in the Insight episode). While I personally believe the director is not as gullible as he makes out, all we can do is point out where there is actual evidence of cheating and let the reader make up their own mind. We don't want to be accused of making claims we can't substantiate.”
Comment: “Latta... just naive” ie. The title of Ateo's website, “SillyBeliefs” suggests that Ateo has an entrenched belief that the psychics are frauds. I believe that it is very doubtful that Ateo would accept any evidence that contradicts his entrenched belief. Because of Ateo's “knowledge” that the psychics are cheats, Latta is seen as “naïve”, as being fooled by the cheating psychics. Read Latta's rebuttal
“Outright cheating or naivety can't be determined without more information” i.e. Ateo gives his game away. In this programme he has no actual hard evidence that there was cheating.
"All we can do is point out where there is actual evidence of cheating."  Ateo has just said that "outright cheating or naivety can't be determined without more information." All he has to offer in the case of this present TV programme are suspicions, "could haves", and insinuations.
“The director is not as gullible as he makes out” ie. What can Ateo be hinting at? That Geoff Husson, Director & Associate Producer of Sensing Murder knows that the psychics are cheats, and is therefore perpetrating a scam on the public? Or is he hinting that Husson is in cahoots with the police, gaining confidential information from them, and then feeding the information to the psychics? Does Ateo not accept that the police information was confidential, and not available to journalists or to the public? In what way does Ateo consider that Husson is lying? It would be of interest if Ateo spoke straight out in public about his suspicions. The resulting libel case might well better demonstrate the integrity or otherwise of the production.
“Blatant cheating by the production team is far more obvious in the other two episodes we analysed than in the Insight episode”  In view of the lack of hard evidence for the implied accusations levelled at the psychics and Geoff Husson in the present episode being discussed, it is possible that perceptions of “blatant cheating” in another episode may be equally unsoundly based. But in any case these considerations are not relevant here. Because the issue is whether or not the psychics independently supported each other in producing information that could only be confirmed from police records not available to journalists or the public, and whether they did it in this instance. Whatever their possible sins on other occasions, the question is whether or not in this present instance the psychics correctly independently sense numerous details of a murder, which could only be confirmed from confidential files. Do we trust the testimony of the police to the correctness of what they sensed? Do we trust the testimony of the Director? Do we trust the testimony of the relatives and friends of the murder victim? 

Who could predict what a jury would conclude, if a charge of knowing fraud were levelled against the psychics, or the producers of Sensing Murder?  What would be sure is that defense lawyers would have a hard job sorting out the wheat from the chaff in the emotional personal attacks and insinuations of the counsel for the plaintiff.  Personal attack has always been a problem with the Skeptics or CSICOPS. And Skeptics are human like us all, and sometimes lack integrity as well.  I recall a Discovery programme compered by Arthur C. Clarke, in which James Randi, the founder of  the Skeptics, was testing a number of people who claimed to be dowsers.  In the experiment caches of water were hidden in the ground, and caches of metals. As it happened, the people scored high marks in their dowsing for water, and low marks for metals. Because Randi rejected the reality of dowsing, he put the high marks and low marks together, averaged them, and declared the dowsing to be a failure. Clarke did protest mildly, at the time. Search on the internet and you will discover some extreme examples of  lack of Randi's integrity.

There can be no doubt that there is much that is phony and much that is scam, in psychic research but also in any research where scientists are depending on funding for their livelihood. Human beings cannot always be relied on for integrity. So there is need for some organisation like the Skeptics.  But unfortunately the Skeptics seem to have become a hit squad for scientists and non-scientists with an aggressively materialist and nihilist philosophy, to discredit their opponants. Do not expect fairness, or a careful weighing of alternative hypotheses in studying a case in hand.

Final remark:  This article can certainly be read as a polemic against those managing the Silly Beliefs website. But let us try to be fair to them. They are rock-hard convinced that consciousness is nothing but electrochemical brain processes. For them it is inconceivable that it could be otherwise. Therefore anyone who claims to be psychic must be a cheat. In that "knowledge" they would consider themselves to have integrity in acting as they have; and would not consider that they are cheating themselves.