<< Return

Sensing Murder – see also Sensing Murder 2
A Lawyer Evaluates The Tracey Ann Patient episode

by Victor Zammit

(those coming from the homesite skip the bracketed introduction - and go from the bold print below)

(Just recently, the New Zealand version of “Sensing Murder” (Ninox TV/TV NZ Production) was shown in Australia. We fully understand that when it was shown in New Zealand some months ago, Sensing Murder raised much controversy. Anything of value inevitably would raise controversy – and so it should. Why?

Because it will force us to closely examine the evidence of the controversial issue. In this case the critical issues are the paranormal and afterlife. My professional background is the admissibility of evidence. To resolve the issues therefore we have to closely look at the objective evidence – and to remove all existing prejudices.

In the highest courts we get the highest level of professional debate. This is the very special venue where we are informed by experts which argument is correct and valid and admissible, and which argument is not. So, let’s see how the professionals at the highest level would deal with “Sensing Murder”.

The obvious questions that arise are: considering that psychics Deb Webber and Sue Nicholson were both highly accurate in their discernment of the circumstances of the death of Tracey Ann Patient, was there fraudulent conduct? Where did they get their accurate information from? Was there a conspiracy between the Production executives, the television station and the psychics? Was someone aiding and abetting the psychics? Was someone trying to mislead the public?

Or can it be that these said psychics are genuine?)

Sensing Murder - the Tracey Ann Patience case

Historically, the paranormal has elicited a great deal of curiosity because it is highly controversial. The skeptical materialists say it does not and cannot exist. Those others who investigated it – including Nobel Prize winning scientists, empiricists and even police officers and others say the evidence shows the paranormal does exist.

Remember, that in any inconsistency between objective admissible evidence and negative subjective prejudice, inevitably the admissible objective evidence prevails. Logically it will always prevail notwithstanding any noise made by those who try to tell us that subjectivity prevails over objectivity.

I watched this Sensing Murder episode about the missing young thirteen year old Tracey Ann Patient very carefully. The presenter, Rebecca Gibney, informed us of the basic facts. Briefly on the 29th January 1976 Tracey left her girlfriend’s home late at night; she was kidnapped, murdered and her dead body was found next morning in a bush some sixteen kilometers away from where she was seen last.

The psychics were to tell us what exactly happened to Tracey Ann Patient more than 30 years after the incident.

The psychics chosen had had to prove their skills by describing details of an obscure murder from a photograph. Deb Webber was one of 5 out of 100 Australian psychics who was able to do this accurately. Sue Nicholson was one of three out of 75 New Zealand psychics who passed the test.

In this case we were informed that only the photo of the victim was given.
No other details of the case were given. The two chosen psychics never met and were not allowed to talk to each other during the investigation. The psychics were kept under constant supervision. The crew only confirmed positive statements they made. They were filmed non-stop in one day.

What did these two psychics come up with?

According to the information given to the viewers:

1. The two psychics related virtually identical information about the case which is summarized below.
2. The information given by each psychic corresponded one hundred per cent with what was known about the case.
3. ... this is a woman … young woman …
4. … she’s thirteen years old …
5. … she loves animals … she had a horse … “I’m sure’.
6. … she liked riding.
7. … she’s English …
8. … name is …. Tracey … Ann Tracey …
9. … went missing in 1976 …
10. … it was January … before school started …
11. … she had been with a girlfriend (the night she disappeared) …
12. … took a short cut through a park …
13. … I see a car … light colored car …
14. … car stopped … she’s walking towards the car ...
15. … he pushed her into the car …
16. … he put something around her neck …
17. … he’s white Caucasian …
18. … he’s unshaven …
19. … he’s got dirty fingers … grease …
20. … (victim) couldn’t breathe …
21. …drove her a fair distance …
22. … *something happened in the car … sexual …
23. … something around her throat … stocking! …
24. … man struggling with her in the car …
25. … car in bushland, he got her out … and dumped her, he walked off.
26. … her body was found the next day …
27. … she’s taking me to Henderson Valley area …
28. … found near scenic Drive …
29. … lived in Henderson …
30. … (both psychics independent of each other) go through a short cut victim went through on the night of the kidnapping …
31. … (before the kidnapping) she was with a friend …
32. … (Deb correctly pointing the direction Tracey went that night) …
33. … area of home in Dellwood Avenue …
34. … stocking went around her neck straightaway -that’s why no one heard Tracey screaming.
35. … (being driven towards the area where Tracey was found, psychic directs the television crew driver when to turn right …correct) …
36. … Deb walks out of the car towards the bush and points specifically where Tracey was found … (Waitaken Range is 17 hectares wide) …
37. … Kidnapper lives locally …
38. … he moved away … went North …
39. … he’s got two children … is separated … and his name is …… (Deb Webber gives the kidnapper’s full name)…
40. … piece of jewelry missing …
41. … it’s a ring …
42. … there’s an engraving on the ring …
43. … she left it in the car …
44. … this man works in heavy machinery ...
45. . .. her parents went back to England …

Rebecca Gibney informs us that the information related by the psychics was stunningly accurate – Deb Webber actually naming the killer. The police were able to trace the suspect who is now working as a mechanic. He lives in Northern Henderson as both Deb Webber and Sue Nicholson stated.

The record shows that there is no evidence that the production company tried to cheat and mislead the public or to act fraudulently. Nor was there evidence that the psychics cheated or were into conspiracy with anyone or acted fraudulently.

The film crew, those who assisted in the production and the presenter herself related absolutely no critical information to the psychics and did not act fraudulently in anyway whatsoever. Nothing illegal or unethical or unfair was done.

The inevitable conclusion after analyzing the evidence shows that both mediums must have obtained the correct information from somewhere.

They state they are gifted psychics and have a proven successful track record and that they were able to obtain the information psychically by communicating with the victim.

In absence of any evidence to the contrary and when all other alternative explanations have been canvassed and dismissed, we have no option but to accept that.

The mediums work on the basis that with us humans there is a brain and a mind. The brain dies when the physical body dies, but the mind survives physical death and retains all memories from the earth-plane. The brain is subject to physical energy and dies when the physical body dies, but the mind survives physical death and in the afterlife has recall of incidents from the time it was on the earth-plane. What’s the evidence for this?

The authority for the separation of mind-brain has been empirically established for more than a hundred and twenty years - see www.victorzammit.com – a lawyer presents the repeatable and empirical evidence for the afterlife.

And what other external evidence is there to support the psychics’ claim of separation of mind and brain and the existence of the paranormal and the afterlife?

Some Scientists Who Accept the Paranormal:

The objective evidence is that quite a number of scientists all the way from the nineteenth and twentieth century to the present accepted the paranormal after investigating it. See A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife:
Chapter 2. Respected Scientists Who investigated
Chapter 25. Quantum Physics and the Afterlife

Some of these scientists include Sir William Crookes, the most decorated scientist of his time, physicist Sir Oliver Lodge, a Fellow of the prestigious Royal Society, Sir William Barrett, Dr J J Thompson the discoverer of the electron, Alfred Russell Wallace. More recently we have other physicists who have explained the existence of the paranormal, for example, physicist Professor Fred Alan Wolf, physicist Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson, Professor Jessica Utts, physicist Dr Harold Puthoff, Professor Russell Targ, Professor Dr Ernst Senkowski, physicist Dr Amit Goswami, scientist Ron Pearson, physicist Professor John Bockris, physicist Dr Claude Swanson, Professor Marilyn Schlitz, Dr Dean Radin whose brilliant book showing in scientific terms why the paranormal is to be accepted in his book The Conscious Univserse– now because of its critical importance to the ‘new science’ was translated into fourteen languages. There are of course dozens of other scientists who have accepted the paranormal.

The above mentioned works would make most impressive and vital impact in a court of law explaining why these brilliant scientists accept the paranormal.

Can you imagine these brilliant scientists telling the court, “Yes, I have scientifically investigated the paranormal and concede that the evidence shows that the paranormal exists.”!

Read Also:

A Lawyer Rebuts Skeptical 'Scientist'

Australian Psychics Beat Orthodox Science

<< Return