Guests: Ben Radford of The Skeptical Inquirer, psychic detective Nancy Weber, police Captain Jim Moore, and NJ State Police Lieutenant Bill Hughes wrap up their discussion of the Amy Hoffman murder investigation.
Read the Transcript:
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED
On this episode of Skeptiko, psychic detective investigations with Ben Radford of the Skeptical Inquirer.
Ben: How do you explain the fact that in at least, you know, if you want to take five, six criteria, how do you explain the fact that in several occasions, at least four instances, the two police detectives remember Nancy Weber saying something different than what she says? How do you explain that?
Alex: I do not have to explain that because Bill Hughes and Jim Moore did a great job of explaining it. We will play that, we will play these interviews, they were good interviews, and we will let everyone else decide.
Stay with us for Skeptiko.
Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers and their critics. I am your host Alex Tsakiris and on this episode of Skeptiko, we are going to come back to a topic that we have touched on several times. It has become a real interesting area of investigation for me and for my collaborator Ben Radford from the Skeptical Inquirer. And of course, I am talking about the psychic detective case involving the Amie Hoffman murders in New Jersey back in the 80s.
As many of you know, Ben Radford is the editor of the Skeptical Inquirer magazine and has written several times about psychic detective cases. We looked at the previous case before together and kind of came to somewhat of a stalemate on it. I then challenged Ben to say, “Why don’t I pick a case and we will investigate it together. We did that. The case that I chose was the case that was investigated by the psychic detective Nancy Weber and I interviewed Nancy several months back about the Amie Hoffman case. You can refer back to some previous episodes of Skeptiko if you want to be caught up in that.
And in this episode, Ben and I take that research one or two steps forward in trying and wrap up as best we can our investigation into that case. So we will start with the conference call that Ben and I had with Nancy Weber. And prior to that conversation, Ben and I had an interesting chat about just where we are in terms of the investigation, so here it goes.
(Start of Discussion with BEN RADFORD)
Ben: So I thinks we can all agree on what makes this case remarkable is the accuracy of the information. The Weber case, I mean, you know, usually, and I need to tell you this, but usually, you know, a lot of us, a lot of the psychic detective information is, it is general, you know, the body will be found near water. Well, is that a pond, is that a lake, is that a stream, is that ditch?
Alex: Yeah, I do not think that is, I do not think that is really the case in terms of, cops have no patience for that. If the information is not useful, they are not going to use it. They are not going to spend any time with the psychic. It is this idea that they are somehow dipped into, it is going to be found in water and they are going to do that, I don’t think so. Just to add to your other point, what, as far as the best case, yeah, I called up Nancy and she said, “I got a great case.”
Alex: And this is the case that we have, and I like this case, I am fine with this case.
Alex: But I want to point out that, I think, what Nancy finds remarkable about this case and what Capt. Moore and Lieutenant Hughes find remarkable at this case is the ultimate way the case is resolved. And that Nancy’s prayer that then leads to Koedatich apprehension immediately after. And we cannot say it leads to it I guess, but there is certainly very, so,
Ben: Well, right, but,
Alex: So, I am just saying, but, then what we focus on since then, because we both agreed,
Alex: That, that would be much harder to kind of establish in a concrete way,
Alex: We focus on the early on information
Alex: I think when we went back,
Ben: Right, right, yeah, yeah, you know, I mean that is, you are exactly right, is that, in a case like this, there is so many elements to it, there is so many facets to it, and we said, okay, you know, regardless of how he was eventually caught, regardless of the information that she gave about O’Brian, you know, what are going to focus on was the specific information that she gave to the police regarding, Hoffman killer before they knew it.
Ben: So anyway, I mean, you know, when I am looking at this, I mean, again, I think it is important to realize that in this case, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove it.
Alex: Of course it is.
Ben: No it is not, the burden of proof, it is just like in our court system. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Alex: No, it is, this is just like a court system, if it was going to trial, you would present your evidence and I would present my evidence and then a jury would go in a dark room and decide based on the evidence. But this whole idea, I mean, that is a, a philosophical discussion about skeptics versus believers. But the notion that somehow the burden of proof is greater on me than it is on you, I do not accept that at all.
Ben: Well right, but I mean, I am just saying, you know, it is not, again, I mean in the court system, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that the defendant is guilty, so that would be the prosecutor. In this case, the claim is that Nancy gave amazingly accurate information to the police. That is up to Nancy or someone else to prove it. It is not for me to prove that she did not.
Alex: Yeah, but it is kind of splitting here, so it is a matter of schematics because in this case, you have the testimony of three independent people: Nancy, Jim Moore and Lt. Hughes.
Alex: So that is the case and the case is untouched at this point,
Alex: So in that respect, the burden of proof is on you as a, I do not know, defense prosecutor or whatever you want to say it.
Alex: The burden of proof would be on you then to somehow discredit or somehow otherwise call into question their testimony.
Ben: Well that is fine, ah, but I mean, again, as long as we agree that, you know, that is, you know, at least in the beginning, I mean, it is not, you know, it is not up to me to prove that you know, I mean if someone says that UFO landed on his lawn, and tell me that, it is not my job as a skeptic investigator to prove that UFO did not land on his land. It is up to him to prove that it did. So, I mean, that is an important distinction to make. But otherwise,
Alex: Right, but let us just be clear, I mean, in this case, it is not quite like, in this case, there was a murder.
Alex: There was someone apprehended.
Alex: And are you of the opinion that they got the right guy?
Ben: Probably, as far as I know.
Alex: Yeah, I say, I say probably, I mean,
Ben: Well no, by here, I will tell you what I will do. I mean, again, you know, from my point of view, you know, so far the information has been given, and you know Nancy may give us new information here in a while and that is great. But you know, so far I am saying myself, well, I do not see a whole lot of evidence being presented to me other than the testimony. But I am willing to take on the burden of proof in trying to prove her claims.
Alex: Well, yeah, and I would say, the testimony Ben, for, and this where, we are probably going to spend the show for an hour and say the same thing. You know, if you cannot rely on two cops who did not know each other,
Ben: Uh huh,
Alex: One is the captain of the police force and run dozens, if not hundreds of investigations like this, if you cannot rely on their testimony for even the most basic facts of a case, then the burden of proof that you have in, in your mind is set way way different than the burden of proof that I have.
So at this point Ben and I stop all our fussing and the feud to conference Nancy Weber into the conversation. Actually we went on for about another 45 minutes but I am going o leave that part of the argument, because this is already a pretty long podcast and we will pick up with Nancy.
(Start of Conference Call with BEN RADFORD and NANCY WEBER)
Alex: Hi Nancy! It’s Alex Tsakiris and I have…
Nancy: I know
Alex: How are you?
Alex: and I have Ben Radford from the Skeptical Inquiry on the phone as well.
Ben: Hi there.
Nancy: Okay. Hello! How are you?
Ben: I am doing well. Its ahhh, we have three time zones here, so for you it is almost 1:00 PM and Alex just get the kids off and I am just waking up
Ben: We can, I think we can make a workout
Nancy: I think so
Alex: Well Nancy, thanks again for taking the time to do this and I really want to say, you know, I really think Ben has really done a very good and admirable job coming out this thing form a skeptical perspective, and he has really dug into it a lot. I have dug into a lot, we both spoken with Capt. Moore and Lt. Hughes but since Ben had not had a chance to talk you we would thought, we thought we get you on the phone and just take one more crack at this because I think, you know so many times in this kind of cases. No matter how much time you spend, there’s always this unanswered questions. And it is absolutely,
Alex: And it is really hard for some people to accept, for most people I think, and before we really step back, and say it is very hard for most people to accept the idea that you are somehow, through some anomalies means that we do not totally understand, getting information and giving it to police and police are actually using it in investigations. That is just really hard for a lot of people to swallow and I think Ben is skeptical but I think it is coming out from a free honest, open,
Alex: Show me the data kind of way.
Nancy: Well I feel the same way about light switches. I do not fully understand electricity.
Nancy: But if the result is useful, I am all for it and that is part of it, I think. That is a very much a part of all of it. That it serves no purpose, who cares if she can do it with anyhow.
Alex: Let me jump in there Ben, let me jump in there then. Let me insert a couple of things if I could. And then I will turn them over to Ben.
Alex: But with that point, right there I think is a good one because one of the things Ben and I were chatting a little bit before and this is almost like a legal proceeding where each, you know, where each side is kind of presenting their case. In the following, it is presenting you as a witness, one of the first things that I want do is establish their credibility.
Alex: And you have mentioned in the past that you have worked with, you have worked on over 300 cases with law enforcement.
Nancy: Probably, right. I do not know how many cases I have worked on because,
Man: More than a hundred?
Nancy: Oh yeah.
Alex: More than two hundred?
Nancy: Probably more than 3, more 4, I really do not know because I do not keep records of most of them.
Alex: And have you worked with a lot of different forces?
Alex: And do any of them come back to you again and say, I assume that some of them say that is good, the information was useful, do they come back to you again and say help me with another case ever?
Nancy: Yeah! Some of them do, some of them don’t. It depends on their status and their community of law enforcement because sometimes I have to go to an awful a lot just to get accepted to do one thing.
Nancy: But then, for instance I worked on a case on a state with the prosecutor’s office and they called me in and we spent the day and we worked on it and they also don’t feel it’s appropriate to let me know what’s going on with the case, a lot of them. So, I never find out but then, I get a call from somebody else from that state, from another department because I was referred which means that they like what I did. Now, do I know what they like? No. Would they tell me? Doubtful. Because they do not want to enter their case in court.
Alex: Right! Which is a whole other point
Alex: We could talk about that kind of practical aspect of work with the psychic detective and one of the things I have learned from talking to more psychic detectives is what seems to be happening also is that some detectives are just working with the psychic totally on the sly. Like, hey, “I am not telling anybody you do not tell anybody, I am going to use the information and you go another way”. But let us leave that aside. I have one last question I do want to turn over to Ben, he in really quite there on the background, but in the past, you know, Ben had suggested and other skeptics had suggested and I understand this, that psychic detectives like yourself are using, really using more or less normal means to get this information. You are Googling it, you are reading the paper,
Nancy: Really? We do not have computers.
Alex: Is any of these, well that is true, in this case there was no Google.
Nancy: (laughing) We did not have computers back then. I do not own a computer until late 80s.
Alex: Right, right.
Nancy: And majority of the time, at that point, my work was, I would say, I would work days and days on prime work. So I spent a lot of time on it. But anyone will tell you, I hardly, if I read a newspaper, it was a local paper, the Mt. Olive Chronicle, I did not particularly watch TV, I did not even know if I owned one back then. And I did not like newspapers. And,
Alex: So this idea that you are somehow, ah, nexus of information, scheming through newspapers around the country and tuning into police scanners is, (laugh)
Nancy: only if I could support the fact,
Ben: You can be more marketable with your psychic knowledge.
Nancy: Oh you have to consider all that, reasonably to, if you are looking at things, but you also have to consider, would that person have done that. Who is that person? One, I could not afford to put food on my table back then very much. So, why would I be spending money on a scanner? That would be ridiculous. And for all the rest that goes along with that. Because they did not know me or my life. So if they looked at my life and what was going in my life at that time, they would recognize that there is no way that I would have known any of that stuff and I would not be involved in any of the equipment because everybody from 14:08 knows, my husband, my current husband for 20 years is a computer whiz now, and he could fix anything. But I would be terrified of all instruments and mechanical things back then.
Ben: I do not think that is the case here. I do not think that,
Nancy: That is silly stuff thing. So go ahead.
Alex: Go ahead Ben. I am sorry, why don’t you jump in and,
Ben: Yeah. I was going to say again, thanks for taking the time to talk on this and show your story and stuff. It is a, I was telling Alex earlier, you know, I think one of the main things that this case is, the specificity of the information, you know. I have been looking into, you know, psychic detective and psychics for a long time and one of the common things that you can find and even you might admit this, but often times, it is very general
Nancy: Yeah sure.
Ben: The body will be found near water. Well,
Ben: Is that a lake, is that a,
Nancy: Yeah, I know there is a body of water in the planet. (laughing)
Man: Yeah! I mean, find me a body that isn’t near in water and I will be impressed. But in this case, you know, you gave, you have some really specific information. So we just start with, what was your involvement in the Hoffman case, I mean you have already told about a little bit about it in a previous review in Alex and also in T.V. show, but can you give us a 15:26 of how you can be involved?
Nancy: Yeah. It was an odd series of events where a lot of coincidences occurred. I met a couple at a celebration somewhere, and they happened to heard me on radio show as a psychic and they were, the wife was very impressed. Well, it turns out her daughter was Aimee Hoffman’s close friend. And she remembered who I was and she called me. That was the first opening. Although I didn’t go into anything then, I told her you know, “references please! I’m not discussing with you”. But my first, as soon as she said that Aimee Hoffman was missing, I saw a tortured raped body and in a reservoir and a cringed and I didn’t want to say anything, to her, because I thought, you never know when your visions make sense or they don’t. And what do you do in telling it to anybody, anyhow? Unless they can do anything with it. What’s the purposed? So I let it go. And then, I read the local newspaper because it happens to a local event where they said her body was found and they could not determine the cause. And I thought that is a pack of lies.
Ben: No, certainly, no obvious wounds or something.
Nancy: Right, no obvious, there were no wounds. And I knew that when it was packed of lies when I read it. It’s just, you know it’s anything else! It’s a politician giving you a story, you go, “ah, ah, not true.” So something about that paper and the wording, this one, not, not true. And a Bill used, I knew who was at that time a detective in New Jersey and we were friends. He would drop by occasionally, he would helped out, if I needed something, because he was big, strong and he can fix things (laughing) and he came by and I mentioned it. And he didn’t know because he wasn’t involved because there was no taskforce. And her murder occurred in another town, so he knew nothing about and how I knew nothing and when another murder occurred, that was when everything came up because he remembered what I just said. And the first meeting with the taskforce told him that she was brutally raped and tortured.
Ben: And so that was, was after O’Brien with him?
Nancy: I, you know, he tells it was after, I don’t trust my own time line on things because I did really keep records.
Nancy: I just, you know! I was not keeping a record of what I have. I just off handedly mentioned it to him, but it was such a vivid memory that I remembered it. Now, I thought all of it occurred before the taskforce, he says “no” because he didn’t know about it, so, I trust his work.
Ben: okay, so now do you consider it to be best your best case or one of them? or…
Nancy: No. Ahm… one of them.
Nancy: And the reason for it is not so much, I mean how do you judge those things? How you really judge it?
Ben: Right, and specially, if the killer and the information did not specifically lead to the killer. It is hard to….
Nancy: How can you judge that, for me I guess probably, one of the best cases which down in, I think it was in East Bronson New Jersey. With the captain or chief of police brought me down there. They had 18 rapes and it was all, escalating the violence, and we drove around, and went to visit one woman who was raped, who was willing to talk to them again, and I pretended to be a police secretary not saying a word. But in her place, I had a vision, and when we got back, I show them my vision was the right hand of this man, I described his height, and his approximate weight, and his color, no name but I said “the way you will get him is his right hand is broken and set wrong” so that it bends in an odd way and show them exactly how, and put out all points bulletin and picked them up the next day.
Ben: Okay, I don’t want, okay, I don not want, that it, I mean, I just to off tract from Hoffman.
Nancy: No, I’m sensing, but you asking me, I don’t,
Nancy: The other cases, but to stop somebody to continuing to harm people is a wonderful thing. So, that one…
Ben: Okay, when did you first get information about being with it, by the time when about, not about Amie’s death but about the killer Koedatich? Was that when the three of you went to a drive?
Nancy: Yeah! When they, I guess part of it is, you know, security in an odd way. Insecure and unsecured, because whatever allows us not to filter out things that are flowing on in us, for me, this is an emotional content, I have to feel confident, I have to feel secured and I have to free to say whatever in front of somebody which can be scary for people who come from being shy like myself. I have had to work on it. So, when Bill brought Jim for me and Jimmy said “Well, let us go for ride, I felt comfortable and secured and say anything that came to me by that point. And when we drove, actually when we were driving around, I would feel I can only tell you a sort of pull. It was almost like, an electromagnetic force field, when you feel a pull in a direction. And I kept feeling the pull towards areas and as I would feel that pull, I would asking myself why. And I would just share everything with them. I just blab the way. And I, one thing I do understand is when you have, I have a half hour TV show and it is a 22 minutes plus commercial, they’re showing you the moments that something happened. In between, there was a lot of nothing,
Ben: Uh huh…
Nancy: And a lot of I do not knows, and there is a lot of chatters, and there’s a lot of just looking around, the are waiting for something, hours of that.
Ben: And what specifically in a nut show did you tell specifically… did you give for Moore and Hughes about Hoffman killer?
Nancy: Okay, sure. I saw a tall, a fairly tall maybe 5’10”-5’11”, slim built man, apple and kind of shaped face. And I saw a lot of dark hair on his head. And then I saw the hair being taken off almost like a wig. And it would be a bust cut with a very high widow’s teeth. I kept seeing that. And then I got the name James as I was writing it. And then I got that he knew the hollow in Morristown which is particular area Morristown. As we were riding around, I also smelled gasoline, smelled an auto shop or a gasoline station. And I knew he was associated, and then I got the word brother. So to me, his brother had either owned, worked at the station and the car that James would be driving would have that. And then I got Polish, and I connected that as Polish decent. That took me to Florida for some reason, where I felt imprisoned. And I felt of being locked away in prison for murder. And I remember saying to them, “Oh my God! He was in Florida in jail for murder, not women.” And they let him out. And you know, as I’m saying it, I’m getting it. I do not know if that makes any sense to anybody, but I did not know it and then said it. I would be just lending the words, spill out and they go, “They released him, those idiots.” And that was just how it was coming for me.
Nancy: And I said I hope I state or the family sue that state for false release of a man who has a mass murder, crazy. And that is how it was coming. So, then I got a last name was Polish that begun with the K and ended in ish and I could not get it. It was K blah, blah ish. And that is what I had said. And then I felt that he left a tiny something behind of Aime’s in his car. And that no matter how he claimed it, it would still be there. And they said “Oh, doubtful.” I said “No. It will still be there.” And then I went to, when we went to where she was murdered, and that was a pull. They were driving around round off and I kind of directed them down there to the road because I just felt like something like a rope was pulling me. And then when I walked, they walked behind me. And I walked over to an area and I got down on the ground and I thought I would just fall apart, because I could feel her pain. It was very fresh.
Ben: Like you are channeling her spirit or?
Nancy: Well, that is, you know, nobody really knows what it is, but for a lack of any other understanding of it, yeah, she was sharing with me everything that happened, and I was re-experiencing it for them. And so I went to the whole thing. And I told them what I was feeling and seeing, and that he had a knife and the knife was the main weapon that he used at all for anything including in getting her into the car. And then afterwards, we drove around and I said “I have to go and mend them,” they said “Ok,” and as we went I said “Take me to the police station. I do not know where it is, but hurry up, get me there.” (laughing) So we went into the police station. And they introduced me to the captain. And they said “Please listen to her. No matter what it sounds like, please hear her.” And I said “You have a man who gave a ticket and maybe two, speeding ticket to a man named James, beginning with the last name K, who grew up in Morristown, Polish decent. And the officer who gave it to him has a last name that begins with the C, and they said “Well, the Captain said we have two,” I said “The one with the hard C, not the soft C.” So he said “That would be Constanza,” I said “Yes, that would be, and he knows who I mean, and that is your killer. Please talk to him.” Oh, what I did not know at the time that they did talk, and that Tommy Constanza had sub changed Koedatich and called him in to the prosecutor’s office, and in the prosecutor’s office, the person who I won’t mention said “Oh, we looked at him in camp B, blew him off and told him to get it and let him go.”
Ben: Right, okay. And now, do you, did you take notes on these information or recorded anything or…?
Nancy: No, no Bill and Jimmy did.
Nancy: I would be taking notes.
Ben: What was that?
Nancy: When I got home. On this case I did take notes when I got home because it was all very confusing. I did not understand how any, I also believe then, that they were many, many times he stalked other women and tried to rape-murder. Try to get them in New Jersey. And nobody would verify that at all, and they all looked at me and I said “I do not get it.” That is when I started taking notes on everything I had thought because I said either I’m crazy or they are sloppy in their work.
Ben: Do you have those notes or are those gone?
Nancy: They became, I may have the early notes. I do not really know, they converted them into writing my very first book “Psychic Detective.” They became the notes, those notes became that. They pretty much has it. But again, I also have something else to corroborate in background. I know somebody who became my bookkeeper, maybe four years ago, five years ago. She watches the TV show, she walks in and she looks white as a ghost. She said “I did not know you work on the Koedatich case.” I said “Yeah,” she said “The O’Brien father Jim,” I said “Yeah,” she said “I worked for him during that time. He gave me all the information from the prosecutor’s office because he was a free holder, and I have all of it.” She said “So, I’m giving it to you because he did not want them anymore,” I said “do whatever you want with it.” And so, there I have all the information that was given to Jim O’ Brian, showing how many people James Koedatich almost captured during that few weeks around. He had been doing this file.
Ben: Alright, let me ask, now, because part of the problem of course, I mean as a investigator is that you know, I’m looking for something that is going to be sort of, you know, harder evidence and unfortunately both Moore and Hughes say that they threw away their notes. So, obviously I mean…
Nancy: Oh, yeah, they would after you
Ben: Right, yeah
Ben: I understand that, I mean I do not fault them for not keeping notes on something that happened on 82, but just as an investigator, it is more difficult to prove something 27 years after the past.
Nancy: Well, it is still difficult to prove even if I had notes, what makes you think that they, you know, somehow I could not jockeying around and pretend it is old notes or whatever
Nancy: I mean there is – that
Ben: Was there any of the information that you gave the police not accurate, or was all that accurate fuzzy notes?
Nancy: Oh it was all accurate. That case, there are few cases that I know that came to police that would absolutely dead on. Why? Those were dead on, I have no clue.
Ben: Okay. And so, I guess one of the things that comes up on my mind is if the information was specific and accurate as you say it was, why do you think they did not solve the case or lead to his arrest?
Nancy: All I know was, I know exactly what happened. The prosecutor’s office rotates investigate us for heating up things. Well, unfortunately they rotate it and headed up the guy who was not qualified to do the work. This is the only time and I do not know if Jimmy would say it but he had said it to me. It was the only investigation he has ever seen when he was captain of the homicide where the lead prosecuting investigator picked one person and went behind close doors and would not share it. Any information nor get any information from everybody else.
Nancy: And made it very clear that nobody else was going to do a single thing about this case.
Ben: Right. But in this case, I mean, both Moore and Hughes, I mean if they had…
Nancy They were not, they did not need to do anything. They were not committed.
Ben: So their hands were tied with it.
Nancy I am telling you, Oh big time. They were swelling out at the task force meeting at one point because the guy investigating prosecutor knew that I had already spoken, spoke to the captain and Mendam New Jersey. He turns out, it turns out this prosecutor turned out five counts who called in James Koedatich, five counts. Five different counts knew who it was believed and he said “Let him go, I will at look at it.”
Ben: That is frustrating.
Nancy Oh yeah! It is all… but
Ben: So, if you got, so you are certain about the information you give to the policemen?
Nancy: I’m positive.
Nancy: So, the people who knew back then, I spoke with, at one point because I was so completely frustrated, I said either I’m crazy or something fishy is going on, because I did not know what was going on, and Jimmy and Bill were afraid to comment and loose their jobs and say something to me because they knew I would be so angry.
Nancy: So nobody spoke until very recently about it because Jimmy is now retired, and Bill is high up in the state police force. So Bill was comfortable expressing but Jimmy recently said it, and said “I have never seen any task force ever handled that way in my life, except that one.”
Alex: He said the same thing to me when I spoke with him. And he also were counted to give an account of the story that you just talked about of him driving up to meet with the investigator with you, and he said he had Lt. Hughes park the car and before he even park the car they just sent you guys right out.
Nancy: Yup, right
Ben: Right. So, now again, part of the problem that comes down to memories from again 27 years ago. So if Moore and Hughes would call differently then either of them is remembering or mistaken, right?
Nancy: If they recall what…
Ben: Well, I mean for example recall this specific information that you gave
Nancy: Yeah, oh I do not know who is mistaken
Alex: What are you going to, Ben, I mean they have said the exact same thing that Nancy said, how was it any different?
Ben: Well, in fact because I interviewed both Moore and Hughes. And like for example with Florida. You said that he came up from Florida, and he had been imprisoned there for murder.
Ben: But that is not what Moore and Hughes told me
Alex: Yes it is, that is what, go ahead. And that is what they told me that we have not… I have not recorded
Ben: Right, and so do I, again, I mean I interviewed both of them, I have a recording of it, Alex have a copy of it, we can always go back and ask them. Srgt. Hughes told me a quote “I do not remember… I do not recall her specifically saying he done in Florida just what he had done time in South.”
Nancy: Yes, he does not recall it but
Alex: How is this…
Nancy: Look at his words, be is very careful with his words.
Nancy: If he does not recall something, nope listen to me, semantic matters, if he said he does not recall, it does not mean I did not say it, it means he does not recall it.
Alex: I agree with that
Nancy: I means he cannot remember if I said he stayed at state or doesn’t. I remember, I knew it was Florida and I told several people it was.
Alex: And besides Moore says it was Florida. I mean do you have anything else, I mean do you have anything real?
Ben: Well, no hold on here, I mean, I’m just pointing out that you know again, the amazing part of this case was the specific information for example that he did in down town Florida, both Moore and Hughes and I have recording to this, say that they do not recall her saying he had done time in Florida.
Ben: Right, and again I don’t know, look, here is the… I was not there, Alex was not there, all I can go by is what people are telling me.
Ben: So for example, there is a case name beginning with a K. And here again, both Moore and Hughes dispute that. Srgt. Hughes told me I do not specifically recall her coming up with the K. Captain Moore said that there was a K, with the hard K in the name, not to begin with K, but there was a K somewhere on the name.
Nancy: And they did say that on a TV show.
Alex: And I think they said it
Ben: Ok, there is no problem, for example you claim that Hoffman killer’s last name ended with an “ich” or an “ish”, same case. According to Srgt. Hughes, I quote, “I do not specifically recall her coming out with the “ich” in the name, and Moore said the same thing.
Ben: I quote “To be honest with you, I do not remember Weber saying the killers last name end with “ich”
Nancy: They do not remember, that is right
Ben: So we have two police officers who do not remember you saying what you said.
Alex: Oh, that is not… you are taking it out of the context. And we can take it offline. I mean we have… do you have any other direct questions for Nancy? Because we got a letter
Ben: Oh let me go on
Nancy: Ok folks
Alex: Because she has…
Nancy: I have to leave, sorry.
Ben: Ok, well
Nancy: I have to go somewhere now
Ben: Alright, let me do one more then, okay. For example
Nancy: One minute
Ben: You claim that Hoffman killer was a Polish decent and his last name was Polish. Again for the forth time, both Moore and Hughes dispute this. Both of them say that you said that the killer was a Eastern-European decent not Polish, so which is that?
Nancy: I know that, they never remember that one. And every time they said that to me I say “She is Polish, he is Polish.” Back even when we did it because I’m the one getting the information, the other one is writing down and they were also kind of flawed by all of it, and they were also flawed by the fact that the prosecutor was shutting them out. So there was a lot of emotional turmoil going on. But where they do recall things they do recall, when they do not, they do not. I think it is pretty clear thing.
Ben: And what was…
Nancy: I’ve got to run, sorry. I have got another meeting
Alex: Thanks a lot Nancy
Nancy: Ok, take care. Bye Alex, bye Ben.
(Start of Discussion with BEN RADFORD only)
Alex: Ok, so after we got off the phone with Nancy, Ben and I hush things out a little bit, and we eventually wind up going back in looking at the transcript and I’m going to pick up there with me reading the transcripts from the interview I did with Jim Moore.
Ok, here is Jim Moore’s testimony. The transcript from my interview with him: Yes, he said that his first name as James and that was a hard K in the last name.
Ben: Right, let us begin with the last name like what she said.
Alex: Ok, but still is that pretty remarkable that…
Ben: Can you at least admit that?
Alex: What is that?
Ben: Can you at least admit that?
Alex: I would say that that is not preclude that it was the first beginning letter and the sound and the name, right? It does not precluded, it does…
Ben: I agree, but again, I mean you know, you are, that was not Nancy Weber’s claim. Nancy Weber’s claim was that
Alex: This is silly, silly Ben. Ben you just heard what she said. So you got to find some way to refute her testimony. Something that is inconsistent. None of these things are inconsistent. They do not refute what she was saying.
Ben: Are you serious?
Alex: Oh you got…
Ben: Alright, let me just understand this, so if Nancy Weber says that she told two police detectives, number one in Campton, Florida, the police say she did not say she came from Florida. Number two, the last name begins with the “K.” The two police say she did not say the last name begin with the “K,” number three, Weber claims that the killer’s last name end with an “ich”.
Alex: It is none sense Ben, a rigid Jim’s transcript which you could read yourself.
Ben: I have read it
Alex: Ok, then she also told me that the individual came from the Morristown area. And that he had moved to Florida where he had committed the murder and was sentence to jail. While in prison, he committed the second murder of an inmate. And he eventually got out, return to the Morristown area. This is Jim Moore talking. So, how does that, the end… that either him or a member of his family or gas station, was working at gas station in the area. That she told me that she was very upset that the man at the police department. She did not know why, he was, he, Koedatich was upset with the man of police department, she did not know why but he was really upset, blah, blah, blah. So all those things directly corroborate Nancy’s testimony if you just stop right there, you would say that is remarkable. There was no way to explain how Nancy could come up with that information, and how Moore could corroborate it.
Ben: But you have three different people who can get this thing straight.
Alex: How did any… I will get Hughes on here in a minute, but nothing that Hughes said refuted it. If she… you were saying that because Hughes said “She said he came from the South,” but that is somehow refute her testimony.
Ben: Alex, Alex, I heard testimony is quote, “He came from Florida.”
Alex: And that is how Jim Moore recalls it.
Ben: That is not… no, no, no let us be very crisp clear. Jim Moore said that she did not said that he did time in the South
Ben: Now he also
Alex: No, I’m reading Jim Moore’s transcript
Ben: Right, Jim Moore told me two different things. Your eye witness told me two different things.
Alex: Well then you show me the transcript, your audio I can barely hear anything out of your audio. You show me the transcript, then if it is inconsistent, we will go back to Jim Moore. We will show him my transcript, we will show him your transcript, we will ask him to explain the differences.
Alex: So, that was what we did, within the next hour, so I was able to reach Captain Moore. My conference call with Ben end, and we have this conversation:
(Start of Conference Call with BEN RADFORD and JIM MOORE)
Jim: Hello, this is Jim
Alex: Hi, Captain Moore, this is Alex Tsakiris again from Skeptiko, and I have Ben Redford from the Skeptical Inquirer on the line.
Jim: Yeah, how are you doing?
Alex: And so as I was explaining, Ben and I had an interesting chat with Nancy this morning, and we got off the phone and we started arguing like we do (laughing) Skeptiko…
Jim: (laugh) We do that.
Alex: But you know Ben has some potential inconsistencies he has sees between the account that you gave to me, and the account that you gave to him. We thought the easiest way to clear that up was to get to you on the phone for just a few minutes, and I’m going to let Ben to take over, go ahead Ben
Ben: Yeah, I was just going to say, you know, part of the problem in this case is that of course, you know, there is no notes, you know, there is of course no notes, they were thrown away. You do not have them, Hughes do not have them, Nancy does not have them as far as we know, so all that were really going are people’s memory and of course, you know, detectives know change over time. So I am just trying to figure out where were the truth stands. So for example, Nancy claims that she specified that Koedatich, we did not know Koedatich at that time but the Hoffman’s killer comes from Florida, but both you and Hughes said that you recall that it was not necessarily Florida, it was just in the South. Do you remember which one of that?
Jim: No, no. I said Florida. She told me that he came…he lived in the Morristown area, went to Florida. While he was in Florida he killed someone, went to jail. When he was in jail he killed an inmate. That is what I told you.
Alex: And that is what you told me on my interview and I have a transcript of that as well.
Ben: Ok. So what you told me is that he said, I quote “I do not remember her specifically he done in time Florida, just the thing he done time in the South.”
Jim: No, I did not say that
Ben: No, no, I just said that you said that. So I’m just trying to figure out why… I mean, if she told both of you the same thing, I just find it odd that you remember something different but…
Alex: But he does not remember different Ben. He remembers, he does not remember Florida, he remembers the South, I mean, I do not see…
Jim: No, no, no, I specifically told you he was in Florida, and he did jail time in Florida, and he killed an inmate while he was in prison in Florida.
Ben: No, no, no, I understand that is what Koedatich history. But the question is, is Koedatich history the exact same thing that Nancy Weber said into, that is the question.
Jim: If you want to know what Nancy said to me…
Jim: Before Koedatich was arrested, she told me that he, whoever committed this crime went to Florida while he was leaving in Florida killed someone, went to prison in Florida and then killed an inmate while he was in Florida. For some reason unknown, he got out. And after he got out of prison, he came back to the Morristown area.
Jim: That is what she told me when I first met her and she was going through what she could feel or sense.
Ben: Okay, that’s fine! The next thing was that, she said that she specified that Hoffman’s killer his last name begins with a “K”, but then what I had you saying was that you said there’s a hard “K” in his name. So, do you remember, did you say that the name starts with “K” or there was just a “K” somewhere in the name?
Jim: I honestly cannot remember exactly, I remember the “K”, the hard “K”
Jim: I do not remember whether she says it began with a “K” or there was a hard, I thought she said it was a hard “K”, in the last name.
Ben: Okay, that’s fine!
Jim: I do not remember. I would not tell you something that I don’t remember.”
Ben: No! And believe me, I appreciate that. Look, I’m not trying to corner anybody. I’m just trying to figure out what is going on because I was not there. Alex was not there, between the three of you. And I’m just trying to nail down what people remember. So, if you do not remember, then, that’s fine.
Jim: You are talking 27 years ago,
Ben: 27 years ago
Jim: which is, everybody do not remember, think you can get a 100%?”
Ben: No, I’m not expecting 100%! That is a part of my point, is that the memories are not necessarily going to match up. Let me go on to the third one, in the case, Weber claim that she said Hoffman’s killers last name ended with an “ich” or an “ish” or something like that, and what you told me was you said that you did not remember her specifically saying that. Is that true?”
Jim: Say that again!
Ben: Well, the question is, what Nancy told you again before Koedatich was arrested, was that she said that she told you and Sergeant Hughes that his last name ended with “ish” or “ich” or something. Do you specifically remember that?
Jim: No, I don’t.
Ben: Okay! The other question was, Weber also said that she said that Hoffman’s killer was a Polish descent, and of course, in that respect, we know that Koedatich was Polish. But, at that time, she said that, she specified he was a Polish descent. But both you and Hughes said that was not true, as far as I can tell, both of you said that she just said that he was an Eastern-European descent. Is that right?
Jim: Eastern-European. That is exactly what she said to me.
Ben: So, she did not say Polish, she said Eastern-European descent?
Jim: No! She said Eastern-European
Ben: That is fine. Then she also, the other case was with, with a, there’s a couple of difference here, but one thing she said, the killer’s first name, do you remember her specifically coming up with the name James?
Jim: She said, I believe his first name was James. Yes
Jim: Could be positive, she was not sure, but she saw James.
Jim: I do not for sure, but I see a James.
Ben: Okay, that’s fine! The only reason I’m asking you is because when I talked to, actually when Alex talked to Sgt. Hughes, he said something long lines of she said, I quote “She did not have a complete name for us.” So, it is possible that she tell you, she told the same thing to both of you as far as you know it or is possible she told you something that she did not mention to Hughes?
Jim: It is possible. She might have been talking to me, there were times that her and I were talking without Bill, Bill Hughes
Jim: They may have been, I am sure that there were times that we discussed the situation and what she had. I only recall, received or felt
Jim: That Bill was not present and I know that she talked with Bill sometimes when I was not present
Jim: So, it was not the three of us were always together, you know.
Ben: Right, okay! And then, I just have one other quick question on the gas station. Weber claimed that she specified that the killer’s brother own and work on the gas station. But from my reading of the note and transcripts that is not quite what she told. She said that from the interview with you, I think, you have said, I mean, I do not want to put word on your mouth, though what I have on the transcript is you saying that she had said that either he, meaning Koedatich, or a member of his family had a gas station or work for a gas station, not so that the killer’s brother. Is that right, or do you remember that?
Jim: She felt that the suspect that we were looking had something to do with the gas station work, whether the brother owned it or he work at it or something, she couldn’t be specific.
Ben: Ok, so that information was not specific?
Alex: Hey, and Jim in the spirit of kind of making this quick and I appreciate your jumping in here, Ben’s overall conclusion that he draws is that, you and Hughes are probably just remembering after the fact, some general things that Nancy said, and are basically matching that to the case. Do you think that might have happened?
Jim: No, when I told you and Ben these things that I can remember Nancy’s telling me before Koedatich was arrested, because the day that I found out that he was arrested and who do know what his name was and everything, everything started flashing to my mind. She was just, this woman was so on to be incorrect as to who we were looking for. Like I told you, I was never a believer in this and I don’t believe everything I see on television and hear about. I do not know whether it is true or not. But she made me believe her, and that’s why I say she made a believer out of me because it’s everything that she would had been telling me when I found out who the principal was and his background and stuff, she was just so accurate as to who we were looking for.
Ben: Right, and that’s exactly my point. What would happened was that with people’s memory specifically Weber is that once you have an answer, once you have a suspect, then you can go back and say, “Oh, my God, it matches up!” You know, he was in Florida, he was Polish, his brother did work in there. But the question is, what did she say back in 82? And unfortunately, we don’t have any hard note, all we have is a source of people’s memory from 27 years ago. Not that, you know, there’s nothing wrong with that, I mean, we are only human after all
Ben: But people’s memory have changed and would have rotten. I have a degree in Psychology, so I’m familiar with how that can happen.
Jim: You have to talked to witnesses about a car accident? And you are given three colors of the car?
Jim: One saw a white one, one saw a green, one saw a blue. And they swear, that was what the color was. But I…
Alex: So, Captain Moore, do you think that is what, do you think that could have happened here that when you heard everything about Koedatich then you went back and you kind of in your mind kind of created, imagine that Nancy had told you stuff that she had not really told you?
Jim: No, I do not think I created things that she did not tell me, no.
Ben: No, no, I would not, let me jump in. I would never say that anybody here created things out of thin air, what I honestly think happened was that Nancy gave general information that she did not say at that time, again before Koedatich was arrested that he too had done time in Florida, she said in the South.
Alex: So you do not think, is it, there was a point, and we are going to wrap this up pretty quick here Jim
Alex: So you do not think when Captain Moore there says that “No she said that he went down to Florida and murdered,” you think that she just misremembering that?
Ben: I think that he maybe misremembering that because Hoffman, because he was telling something different.
Alex: Ok, hold on. So Jim do you think maybe you are misremembering that Nancy never really told you that he went down to Florida and that he was convicted from murder down there?
Jim: No, I can specifically remember her telling me before we knew who it was or before he was even captured that whoever did this went to Florida, I can remember specifically that he went to Florida and while he was in Florida he killed someone, then this the way she told me “He killed someone, he went to prison and while he is in prison, he killed again.” And that was her words, her words to me when I was taking notes, I remember that specifically. There are some things I do not remember, but I remember her telling me that before this ever came about before he was even captured.
Ben: Ok, now if you were in the court room and you are being asked to recollect this from 25-27 years ago, you would consult your notes, right?
Jim: Probably yes, if I had them, yeah
Jim: But I did not mean I did not have any memory.
Ben: Right, obviously, but I mean a jury and a prosecutor and defense is more importantly, and I am just going to say, you know, people’s memory changes and eye witnesses see three different things, and so, the only way to really corroborate who’s memory is correct is to have some sort of independent corroboration notes taking at that time, third party well route, and unfortunately, I’m certainly not blaming you or anybody else but unfortunately, we do not have that as far as I know.
Jim: Yeah, well, I can only tell you what I feel and what I believe. Whether you believe it or not, I mean, that is up to you, but…
Ben: No, I understand
Jim: I do not, I not want to exaggerate, I do not tell this, and I do not lie. If I cannot remember, and there has been a few things I have heard, I do not remember.
Jim: I do not remember.
Ben: And I respect that, I mean, that is what we needed, it is the truth. And if you cannot remember certain things then that does not mean that someone was lying. It just means that you cannot remember anything
Jim: Yeah, exactly, because I remember specifically that was one of the things that she told me during our meetings, and going to the sites and stuff and trying to gather information. She specifically told me that right up, close to the beginning.
Ben: Ok, alright
Jim: Now I say if she says about the “ish” is the last name, I do not remember she telling me that. I remember she was saying, she says a hard “K” in the last name, but I remember he tell me it was the beginning, I just remember he was saying “I see a hard “K.” and I see the name James I do not know whether that is his name or why I see that.
Ben: Uh huh
Jim: But that is what she saw.
Be: But if she told you that, then presumably you would have told Hughes, right? I mean if Nancy have said “I see the name James,” then you are not going to share that information with Hughes, you are not going to keep that to yourself.”
Alex: Let us call up Bill, let us let Jim go.
Alex: We will can call up Lt. Hughes and see. Captain Moore thanks a bunch.
Jim: Thank you very much.
Alex: And I do not think we will bother again on this but we appreciate all your help.
Jim: Ok, thanks a lot, bye.
So at this point we pause. We are unable to reach Lt. Hughes immediately but we reach him within the hour later and here is that interview:
(Start of Conference Call with BEN RADFORD and Lt. HUGHES)
Lt. Hughes: Hi, this is Lt. Hughes
Alex: Hey Lt. Hughes, this is Alex Tsakiris again from Skeptiko
Lt. Hughes: Yes
Alex: Thanks again, I am not going to take too much of your time. Let us turn it over to Ben. Ben is concerned about some potential inconsistencies he sees between the interview you gave with me and interview you gave with him. So let us let him kind of take it over.
Ben: Ok, actually I’m not that inconsistent, I’m trying to reconcile what Nancy said. This is all regarding the information she gave in 82 before Koedatich was arrested. For example she says that she said specifically that the Hoffman killer come up in Florida, but from what you told me and I think they all sort of places and that you said that you did not remember her saying he come from Florida just in the South. Is that right?
Lt. Hughes: No, no, no, she not. I might have said that but no, she knew that the guy had killed before that he had kill in Florida.
Lt. Hughes: Yes. She knew that he had killed before, that he had killed in Florida.
Ben: Ok, and what is…
Lt. Hughes: That he had done a prison time in Florida.
Ben: Ok, you kind of told me that you said done time in the South. You said, I do not recall her specifically saying he done time in Florida, just that he done time in the South.
Lt. Hughes: No, I do remember Florida, I mean, that was me being generic or whatever the case might be but I do know that she said Florida.
Ben: Ok, the second thing was regarding along some more lines that Hoffman killer’s last name begin with the “K,” I think that when we spoke with Mr. Moore, he said that he remember her saying is that he has a hard K somewhere in his name, and from what I remember you said that was that you did not specifically recall her coming up with the “K.” Do you remember that or not?
Lt. Hughes: Yeah, I do not remember all I know was the name go that, she knew that name was consistent but someone of Eastern European decent. But where the “K” was not a name or any specific letters of the name, I cannot be too sure but I know I cannot believe that it was the letter K that she came up with.
Ben: Ok, because again, you know, what you told me was again I quote, “I do not specifically recall her coming up with the “K,” but you were saying do you remember that now?
Lt. Hughes: No, I cannot be sure. Again we are talking about something that is 26 years old.
Ben: Yeah, look, I just want to be clear, I mean I’m not faulting your memory, I mean, I barely remember last month, to be honest with you so, the fact that people are fuzzy on this does not surprise me at all and I’m not casting in his version or on you or in anyone else’s memory. I’m just trying to figure out what you know.
Lt. Hughes: No, not at all.
Ben: Because in this case details are specific, so the thing…
Lt. Hughes: Okay. The thing that stands out most when she came up with her, what she thought was a name, it was limited, very limited but what really impressed me the most was that she narrowed it down to a name with Eastern European origins and she was dead on there. Specific letters or anything like that, maybe it was a “K” maybe it was not, maybe it was an “ich,” you know, I see H for the last part and maybe it was not, I mean we have discussed this so many times and I would have done so many shows over and over a period of time. I have heard Jimmy Moore says, well, he remembers this and Nancy says I remember that, and some times it is hard to separate what I specifically remember of the incident when we were there and what I just remember hearing from all of the interview that we have done and stuff like that.
Alex: Let me jump in because it is just that we are going to do the same thing over with these other things, so let me kind of cut to the chase here Lt. Hughes. Ben’s conclusion again, he is a skeptical guy, and that is okay, but his conclusion at the end of the day is that you and Captain Moore, what probably happened is Nancy just gave you some general information and then when Koedatich is caught, then you kind of went back and re-remembered it in a different way that it really was not some specific information. Do you think that could have happened? You think you might have just misremembered this whole thing?
Lt. Hughes: No, not at all, she gave very specific details that when we went back and looked, when he was arrested and we looked at him and we have, me and Jimmy were just astounded with what she has given us. I mean, again a lot of what she gave us was stuff that really could not be tracked.
Lt. Hughes: The guy has Eastern European name. You have narrowed it down from 275 million people in the United States down to maybe 30 million.
Ben: Right, but in that case, I mean she specified that she said his last name was Polish?
Lt. Hughes: Ah, now, there, I do not remember her saying the last name was Polish. What I remember was Eastern European which you know that would… it is a broader term, alright?
Lt. Hughes: It would probably be Poland which is an Eastern European
Ben: Right, and that is exactly my point is that some of the stuff, it later turned out to you are right but I’m just wondering whether, yeah, in retrospect yes Poland just part of Eastern European so, Checoslovakia, Romania, Poland, Croatia, Serbia, Atria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, I mean so in this case it seems, and in others, it seems like, you know, she is saying that she specified it was Polish, and you and Moore saying I do not remember Polish and she use to remember it was Eastern European and it does not mean someone is lying or that just means that remembering different things.
Lt. Hughes: Yeah, I remember like I said, I remember Eastern European
Lt. Hughes: I do know that she was, I can be more definitive regarding Tommy Constanza and then the police department and the summons that he received, that is a very, that is the subject that is much more narrow in its scope. I mean when she is talking about Eastern European or she is talking about a name, that is a broad brush right there
Lt. Hughes: But when she is narrowing things down, the more she narrows things down, the more intent my memory is, the more focused my memory is to stuff like that. When were driving by a place that used to be an old road, or a skating ring, she mentioned, “Oh the guy has been arrested here, and Mt. Olive township before.” And then we find out that he was. Those are specific things or much narrower subjects like I said.
Ben: Sure. And so just for the record, you do or do not remember her specifically coming up with the “ich” in the name?
Lt. Hughes: With the “ich”, I do not specifically remember that. No, I do not.
Lt. Hughes: She may have had
Ben: What about…
Lt. Hughes: She came up, I remember her coming up with part of the name, whether it was K or the “ich” or something like that. I do not specifically recall and that is just time, time has passed, so much has passed. But I do, but I can say unequivocally is that, she mentioned Eastern European heritage.
Ben: Okay. And I guess, further one more quick question on this list, what about the first name James? Did she come up with James or was it not specific complete names?
Lt. Hughes: I do not remember the first name at all
Ben: Ok, so you do not remember her coming up saying that Hoffman killer’s name was James?
Lt. Hughes: No, I do not.
Ben: Ok, and one of the quick one was on the, there was some questions about whether she said that Koedatich or his brother owned and worked at a gas station. I think you have said you remember that was a mechanic and Moore had said that it has something to do with a gas station. So I’m trying to,
Lt. Hughes: She, I remember her saying something to the effect that she saw a dirty hands, a man working with his hands, and she associated with, now my term I do not use the term gas station, I use garage. That is the way I grew up. She could have say gas station and I just interpreted garage because when I was growing up, I went to the garage. The gas station was the garage, you do not have just a plain old gas station like you have today.
Lt. Hughes: So my recollection was a garage as to what she said
Ben: But you know
Lt. Hughes: She could have said gas station, I just translated that to say garage.
Ben: Okay, but did you understand and again, I do not mean to be hard on this, but you know details and specifics are important here. What, did, your understanding that she was saying that the killer worked to that gas station or the brother or just somebody associated with her? Or what was the connection of the garage or gas station?
Lt. Hughes: That he worked there. That he had work at the garage locally, and she had made that, she had mentioned that I believe when we were driving, if it was in Rocksbird or something like that.
Ben: Okay. And, would it, did Koedatich worked at the gas station, as far as you know?
Lt. Hughes: Well, he worked with his brother for a period of time who owned a gas station.
Lt. Hughes: On a garage in town, a full service garage.
Alex: Hey guys, we better wrap it up because I have to go too.
Ben: No, no that is good. I very much appreciate your input on this. This is a very strange bubbling case and I am just trying to hash through it. So I very much appreciate your thoughts and comments.
Lt. Hughes: Yup, no problem.
Alex: Thanks a lot Lt. Hughes.
Lt. Hughes: Ok, guys bye.
(Start of Discussion with BEN RADFORD only)
Alex: So, anything you want to add as a result of all that?
Ben: Well, I will just point out and again you and I can sort of agree to come on this from different points of view, but I just want to sum it up by saying, look, the claim was her specific information and that was the amazing stunning part is she knew Florida, she knew Polish
Alex: Well, about Florida stop there, everyone says that she said Florida, right?
Ben: Well, I have, they are different stories.
Alex: No, just got the story Ben. You just got the story from, there was emphatic, Hughes was emphatic, Jim Moore was emphatic, that he said Florida.
Ben: And Hughes told me we could go I quote “I do not recall her specifically saying done time in Florida.”
Ben: This thing…
Alex: And then you told me Florida, he has told me
Ben: Oh fine, again we can go on. I’m just saying that I mean you can check the record yourself
Alex: Yup, but that does not, there would never… that is just not playing it fair. It is just playing it with such a slanted, biased way. We call the guy back up to see if he really recalls Florida. He recalls Florida, if you want to provide the transcript, the recording and we can maybe infer whether he was what he was thinking when he did not give that specific information, or said this up, it is just, it is really a feudal exercise at that…
Ben: Well fine, we can let Florida go, again…
Alex: No, you cannot let Florida go, because if Florida, if she said Florida all she has to do is say one remarkable thing that we could not explain any other way. And she said a bunch but one remarkable thing would point that the reason why she has done 300 cases, the reason why law enforcement professionals continue to use her and rely on her is because she provides good solid information. You are making the case, that it is, whether, you are very polite Ben, and you are very easy to talk to, you do a good job with this interviews, but at the end of the day you have done multiple, multiple psychic detective investigations and now I am one of them, do you see any evidence for anomalous cognition? And you have to weigh that against the fact that these police professionals despite what many, many skeptic’s have said continue to rely on these people because they do, in their opinion, provide information that is useful in these investigations. So,
Ben: We are not talking about other cases, we are talking about this specific case.
Alex: We are talking about, we are talking about other cases because it
Ben: No, no
Alex: Hold on
Ben: This is your best case, this is what you brought up to me
Alex: Quit bringing it up over and over again, that is just a stupid little ploy. We have gone over that territory, we have gone over that territory a million times. This is a great case, there is no such thing as the best cases, no such thing as a perfect case. You asked Nancy if it is the best case, she said “No, I think another one.” Then that did not make your point so you quickly would have done something else, like it is some debate. But the point is that you view of the world is that none of these people, in all of these cases and the reason why 300 cases that Nancy has done is significant is because it lands to her overall credibility. This is not the first case she has worked done. She has work done many, many. And the police associated with it are impressed with what she does. The weight of all that evidence together adds credibility to what everyone saying is here.
This is not an island, this is not an isolated incident. And the fact that you, what I would like to know, I would like to see some record Ben, of all the psychic detective investigations you have done. You have done dozens. I would love to see the dozens, and I will follow-up as many as I can and we will kind of get some closure that way too, because I cannot believe that we have done these investigations as long as we have had. And we are coming to obviously different conclusions but we are learning something along the way about the methods that I employ, the methods that you employ. And like you said what evidence is meaningful to each of us. So can you do that? Can you show me the cases you have worked on?
Ben: I can say some of the cases, this case took a whole lot of time and effort. And I’m not going to, I am supposed to trying to work and get my mind around this one. So I can send you other cases but I do not know, again this is the one you choose
Alex: This is the one that I chose, and this is the one that were the testimony of all three people your investigation has not lead to any different conclusion that we come to about their testimony. You have not challenged
Ben: Well, let me get a word in here, how do you explain the fact that in at least you want to take five, six times how do you explain the fact that in several occasions, at least four instances the two police detectives remember Nancy Weber saying something different than what she said. How do you explain that?
Alex: I do not have to explain that because Bill Hughes and Jim Moore did a great job of explaining it, we will play that, we will play this interviews, they were good interviews. We will let everyone else decide.
Ben: Well, no…
Alex: I think they have explained it, I think they have explained it quite well. I think it is absolutely absurd for you, I mean you merely want to push me. I think it is absurd when the guy said “Yes, she came from the South,” and you go “Oh, there is an inconsistency one person says she came from the Florida, and the other person says she came from the South. You lived in New Jersey. Florida is the South. So then you push him on the further and said he might as well use the general term. This is one of your points and our goal Ben, this is one of our big points of an inconsistency. Another one is the garage, and he says gas station. I mean this is just meaningless minutia that gets in the way of really looking at the big picture, which is that you have looked at all these cases, you have never found anomalies cognition, you have never found psychic mean, anything to suggest, anything like a psychic communication. And detectives work on dozens of cases. Never worked, Jim Moore never worked on psychic case before but works on this one he says “Wow, from my experience as a detective, this is amazing information.” And that to you can always be dismissed, can always be explained the way, I mean that is the state of the skeptical thing.
Ben: That is not true. Hold on here, you are making one accusations here. It is not that I cannot be dismissed. The problem is, if we had notes, taken at the time, that would back up the story. Show me the notes.
Alex: Oh, that is non sense. They had their notes
Ben: Show me the notes
Alex: They have their notes until 2001. And like what we just went over in the last conversation, he wanted Nancy’s notes. And then I said “Well Nancy, what if we had Nancy’s notes?” well then, maybe she changed that there is always something you can go to, and Jim were pointed that out too. There is no holy grail in terms of evidence here that would satisfy you. If they had the notes, you would not be satisfied.
Ben: How do you know?
Alex: That is pointless, that is pointless. You have their testimony. We have interviewed them three times now.
Ben: Yup, and I still see all sorts of, apparently let me just be very clear, with Hughes, there is no difference between her saying specifically that Hoffman’s killer was Polish and they are saying that he is Eastern, to you they are exactly the same, is that right?
Alex: They do not have to exactly the same.
Ben: No, no just answer the question please. To you, are they exactly the same? Yes or no?
Alex: I go with, I go with the interpretation, I think
Ben: Yes or no Alex
Alex: I do not have to answer, it was just, I do not have to answer things the way that you want
Ben: Are they the same or not?
Alex: I would not want anyone to, what Bill Hughes said in terms of understanding this. And how different people and I think also what we learned is how the whole process is, how Nancy is coming up with these information and there is a lot of information that is kind of being thrown out and might not all fit together perfectly at the time, and is open to some interpretation at the time. The fact that Nancy would remember it as Polish and Bill Hughes would remember it as Eastern European that is something as, again as Hughes points out, that we will never know. But the substance of the point there, I think they are all consistent on it. And I think that most reasonable people, and I just mean this for real. If you went out and pulled most reasonable people like in a jury, and you put that out there, I don’t think most people would be drawn to that as a major inconsistency that one person was more specific inside this Polish and the other person saw it general as kind of Slovic Eastern European kind of thing.
Ben: So, to you, Weber’s information and the information provided by Moore and Hughes match up perfectly or very well, is that right?
Alex: They do not show any kind of major inconsistency in this story no, they do not give me any cause for concern.
Ben: But even when Weber claims that she said things that neither Moore nor Hughes member, that is not a problem for you?
Alex: It is not a problem for me that she could remember it as Polish and they could remember it as Eastern European and that it, you made this big thing about how memory can be distorted, in that way, I understand how people can.. I think that is the perfect example of kind of your point. People can kind of misremember things a little bit but they can kind of get the overall gist of it right. And I think that is how memory works. And I think that is how memory works in this case.
Ben: And the fact that she said she saw James and both of them say “No” that but that is not a problem either? Okay, that is fine, I mean we are just, we are just coming to this in two different points of view, and as long as you present both cases fairly, then we will see what is the best.
Thanks again for all the guests that contributed to the show Nancy Weber, Captain Jim Moore, Lt. Bill Hughes, especially Ben Radford who spent quite a bit of time on this case. Ben and I as we have mentioned in the show, have been working on it for months, Ben really dug in to things, spend a good deal of a time with e-mail exchanges and on the phone, and he has really dug into this at a level that I think is very admirable and I mean that as sincerely as I possibly can.
I think this is the kind of work that where skeptics and believers collaborate, we can really create a dialogue that is meaningful and gets us closer to understanding how this mysteries can remain mysteries. So I think that is probably going to wrap up this case. I have many, many more ideas on how we can push this psychic detective work forward. That is going to be coming up in the future episodes, and perhaps in future experiments. In the meantime, if you are new in Skeptiko, be sure to check out our website at skeptiko.com. You will find links on our previous shows, a link to our forum, and an e-mail link where you can drop me a note. That is going to do it for today. Stay with us, many, many more interesting shows coming up on Skeptiko.