A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife


Return to
A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife



(continues) PART 2:

(This is a continuation from part 1)

For those who never heard of J Zwingi Randi before, below is a very brief 'cross-examination' on just a few issues. For decades closed minded skeptic Randi is on record for organizing hoaxes to fool, cheat, mislead and deceive innocent people. He has viciously attacked mediums, psychics and afterlife investigators. This is a cross-examination on just some of the things he has said, done and implied. He continues to deny the existence of the paranormal even when there is objective and repeatable evidence for the paranormal and the afterlife produced by scientists and empiricists - and lawyers.

This would be fairly close to a real cross-examination- the information is taken from what J. Randi has ALREADY ACCEPTED and IMPLIED. Some very minor flexibility and embellishment consistent with J. Randi’s beliefs and record have been used for easier reading and understanding of the script. In no way this closed minded skeptic's beliefs are misrepresented. Words in caps are there for emphasis - very important in cross-examination.

(Part 2)

Victor: How are you feeling to-day Randall James Hamilton Zwinge Randi?

Randi: If that is a sarcastic comment implying that you don’t think I’m well, sorry to disappoint you, I’m very well …

Victor: Well? I was hoping you’d say that! You'll need that to-day. Just for the record, you are well physically, psychologically and mentally ?

Randi (very confidently): Never been better…

Victor: How's your memory to-day?

Randi: .... oh OK ....

Victor: That’s really good to hear. You stated yesterday that in some forty years you never came across any paranormal or afterlife evidence … you said that - right?

Randi: Yes, that’s right …

Victor: For the record, you are not a scientist or a lawyer or an academic professional?

Randi: No, I’m not.

Victor: Are you formally qualified with a degree in Scientific Method?

Randi: No I’m not

Victor: Do you have a qualification in statistics?

Randi: No.

Victor: This means you are NOT qualified, not technically competent in how to conduct a proper scientific experiment to validate any phenomena at professional level?

Randi: I have my ways of testing….

Victor: You would have come across that Sydney lawyer’s book A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE AFTERLIFE – yes or no?

Randi: hesitating … yes .. many years ago …

Victor: And that lawyer states he has outlined more than twenty different areas of afterlife evidence. He also claims that you FAILED to rebut any part of that evidence in ten years- according to his website some THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHT days.

Randi: So?

Victor: Yes or no?

Randi: Yes, yes he states something like that ….

Victor: The record shows that for over TEN YEARS he challenged you to rebut the evidence for the afterlife… if you did, you would have collected a cool MILLION DOLLARS. Why didn't you take him on?

Randi: There’s no evidence…

Victor: (giving a copy of the book to Randi and one to the judge … 'item 3 Your Honor’ ): Your Honor, could I get the court attendant to give a copy of this book to members of the jury?

Mr Randi, could you open at page 3 headline CONTENTS … Now do you see on page 3 some TWENTY areas of afterlife evidence starting with Chapter 3 MATERIALIZATIONS … Chapter 4 Electronic Voice Phenomena, Chapter 5 Instrumental Trans-communication… and so on – to Chapter 25 on page 4 about Quantum Physics and the Afterlife….

Now Randi, as His Honor and the jury members are browsing through the book looking at page 3 and 4 …CAN YOU SEE ALL THESE AREAS OF AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE THAT MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE CAN SEE- YES OR NO?

Randi: …. There is no evidence

Victor: Can you identify for the jury just one aspect of the TWENTY AREAS of afterlife objective and repeatable evidence that is not scientific or empirical?

Randi:...I don’t remember anything about that book …

Victor (sternly): Did you read this book properly?

Randi: (Quiet) ….

Victor: You are on oath: answer the question YES OR NO!

Randi: Not really … but I skimmed through it …

Victor: So, WITHOUT READING the book, WITHOUT having studied the presented evidence, WITHOUT checking with scientists about the evidence, without REFUTING the evidence, you have come to a negative conclusion? …

Randi: I wouldn't waste my time. There is no afterlife…

Victor: So you keep on saying ... you came to negative conclusions about the paranormal and afterlife evidence WITHOUT READING THE EVIDENCE?

Randi: (Does not answer)

Victor: (looks at the judge)

Judge: Yes, answer the question

Randi: (reluctantly) .. yes... that's right...

Victor: Let's move on.... What is your claim to being able to test psychics and mediums?

Randi: I’m a specialist in deception … I..

Victor: … a specialist in PERFORMING DECEPTION did you say?

Randi: In DETECTING deception ..

Victor: If you are a specialist in detecting deception, that would also mean that you yourself have the professional expertise in how to CHEAT, how to LIE, how to be DISHONEST, how to fool and how to DECEIVE people - and how to deceive the jury and the court – yes or no please?

Randi: Yes….But I never deceive people …

Victor: Never?

Randi: No never…

Victor: We’ll see …Have you ever intentionally misled the public, YES or NO!

Randi: Yes … as a magician one could say yes …

Victor: When you are NOT acting as a magician, have you intentionally deceived or tried to deceive people for whatever reason – you are on oath – yes or no?

Randi: I don’t want to answer the question … (Victor looks at the judge)

Judge: Yes, yes, (to the witness) Answer the question …

Randi: Yes, kind of, but I need to explain ..

Victor: NO! The question calls for a yes/no answer. You answered yes …

Randi: (quiet) ...

Victor: ( looking at some documents). Mr Randi, are you of good character?

Judge: …. You do not have to answer that question ..

Victor: Your Honor – may I approach the bench …, (Victor to the judge) .. the witness will not deny – in fact he will admit that in the media and in his many publications he has expressly stated and imputed that he is of good character – being the chairman of a technically charitable organization. Accordingly, I submit I do have a right to put that question to the witness about what he publicly stated and imputed about himself …

Judge: Yes, yes all right …proceed…

Victor: Tell us the truth, the whole truth Mr Randi are you of good character?

Randi: (Hesitates ..) Yes …I am not a criminal if that is what you’re asking.

Victor: Are you an honest man?

Randi: … what do you mean by an honest man?

Victor: You know what I mean by an honest man; someone who does not cheat, lie, deceive, steal, get into public trouble, act maliciously at the expense of others ... are you an honest person just answer YES or NO.

Randi: Yes, I am an honest man …

Victor: Have you ever been DISHONEST, trying to intentionally cheat the public …?

Randi: I don’t have to incriminate myself answering that ..

Victor: Incriminate yourself by refusing to tell jury you that you are not dishonest? Did you ever lie to the public?

Randi: Everybody lies …

Victor: Everybody? Including the His Honor and the jury ….

Randi: (Hesitates) Including ALL LAWYERS …

Victor: The Judge is a lawyer … No, you don’t have to answer that … the judge and the jury heard your answer already … (Victor looking at documents on his desk) … Tell us Mr Randi, did you ever ADMIT in public that you are a professional LIAR, and a CHEAT?

Randi: Yes, but that was in relation to my work as a magician …
Victor (looking as his notes): DID you not put on record - describing what you do - in the Diner's Club as a 'PROFESSIONAL CHALRATAN'?

Randi: ... That was a while ago ... that was a gimmick ...

Victor: (looking at his notes) Describing yourself as a CHARLATAN ... 'one who lays claim to knowledge and skill which he does NOT possess … a QUACK… unqualified and untrained practitioner of a skilled profession'?

Randi: As I said ... a gimmick ..

Victor: .... So, you are professionally trained to make fools out of people everywhere?

Rand: Yes … I suppose so …

Victor: But you don’t do magic any more .. Have you ever been involved in organizing a public nuisance - public mischief, yes or no?

Randi: (remains quiet, looks disturbed …)

Victor: All right, let’s put it another way. Is it not on public record that you organized HOAXES?

Randi: Yes, I’ll answer that question (boasting) – yes, I did.

Victor: Could you speak louder please, did you organize public HOAXES?

Randi: Yes, I organized public hoaxes ...

Victor: And are you an expert in presenting illusions?

Randi: YES I’m an expert in presenting illusions …

Victor: And you do agree (Victor reading from his notes on his desk) that illusion is something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality?

Randi: Yes .. I guess so ...

Victor: … So that we know what specifically we are talking about, a hoax (looking at his notes) is, to quote, “To deceive, dupe, take in by misrepresentation’ – Webster’s International dictionary … You will have to agree with that, yes?

Randi: (hesitantly) …Yes …

Victor: In answering yes to that question does it not follow then that you then agree that when you say you organized public hoaxes, you duped and deceived, you were DISHONEST, you LIED, you CHEATED, you MISREPRESENTED ?

Randi: Aren’t you using strong words for a hoax. I was honest in what I did.

Victor: Ohhhh!!!!!!!, you were HONEST in your DECEPTION?
... That is the meaning of the word HOAX … Let me remind you are on oath – it IS on record you instigated and organized serious public hoaxes .. YES or NO?

Randi: Yes …

Victor: Would you call yourself an honest liar, honest charlatan?

Randi: I'll have to think about that ....

JULY 1st 2011


Chapter 3