The March 24 and 31, 2004, installments of Court TV's (now known as "truTV") criminally credulous documentary series Psychic Detectives profiled two crimes for which Noreen Renier has been credited with providing valuable "psychic" assistance to police. The second story, previously unknown to me, was pizzazz-free and not even entirely convincing to the detective. But the first program was quite another matter.

Renier, who lived in Florida for many years before moving back to the rural Charlottesville, Virginia, area in January 2004, was described as having "cracked cases for law enforcement agencies around the country, including the FBI." I have had occasion to investigate one such claim in great detail -- her Williston police case, and reached a contrary conclusion. During a 1986 libel trial involving a skeptic who had accused Renier of "fraudulent activity," now-retired supervisory special agent Robert Ressler testified that Renier's FBI-related claims are "not true from the standpoint of being a paid employee [or] being on a retainer or being used in any regular capacity. She does not work on FBI cases. . . . [We don't use] psychics in our investigative process."

But the specific case profiled by Court TV on March 24 involved an elderly couple in Colonie, N.Y., near Albany, who had been murdered in their home in 1986. According to the narrator, as the detectives begin to formulate a list of suspects, "One family member grabs investigators' attention, the . . . grandson," described by lead detective Ray Krolak as a "habitual liar" with a police record who, just one day after the murders, demanded to see his grandfather's will. But he had an alibi, as did another suspect -- an acquaintance of the grandson's who had an extensive criminal record and was contracted to do some tile flooring for the murdered couple.

With no arrests after two years, at the urging of the son and daughter Krolak consulted Renier by phone. At her request, he then sent her some objects belonging to the victims. In their follow-up conversation, "Krolak is stunned, as Noreen describes the crime scene to a 'T' even though he has given her no background on the case." No background? Krolak: "I didn't give her much information. I just told her it was a homicide, a double-homicide, and Jake and Dora's names." Oops! Renier (or an associate) could have researched the newspaper coverage of the case, had she so desired. Krolak says he obtained Renier's telephone records to see if she had made calls to the Albany area but found none, convincing him (if not me) that she had done no such research.

According to Krolak, during Renier's reading "she felt the killer . . . had eaten [at the house] on a few occasions . . . and had done some work or was going to do some work in the . . . house." She also is said to have come up with the initials "R.S." -- those of the sleazy grandson's sleazier acquaintance. But, again, they had alibis. I suspect she may have learned of these prime suspects by non-psychic means, but Krolak believes otherwise.

Frustrated, Krolak decided to fly to Renier's home (in Orlando at that time), taking with him photographs of his top 10 suspects. As reenacted on the Court TV program, he laid out the 10 photos (upside down at Renier's request) on a glass tabletop. Narrator: "Noreen immediately eliminates seven photos. . . . Krolak is astounded as Noreen, using only her psychic powers, finally reveals the face underneath [the first of the three remaining cards]. . . . It is Robert Skinner, the [R.S.] man who has been a suspect all along. . . . Her second pick is . . . Skinner's associate [in past crimes]." We hear Renier saying that she believes Skinner to be the shooter.

But now we get to this case's signature claim. Noreen turns over her third card, revealing the face of the grandson. Yes, Renier fingers the grandson, saying, "This man planned it." And at Renier's urging, Krolak scrutinized the trio's alibis more intensely, finally found some holes, and all three suspects have now been convicted.

Did Krolak scrutinize Noreen Renier's claims of genuine "psychic" power equally intensely? I suspect that most viewers came away with the impression that Renier must be the real deal. I doubt that more than a fingerful of viewers had scrutinized her prior claims to the degree I have, or had benefit of tapes of the following two television programs: Geraldo (syndicated, May 30, 1991) and 48 Hours (CBS, May 13, 1992).

In the latter, CBS News correspondent Doug Tunnell says, "One of the people Noreen led police to was a new suspect, a member of the victims' family . . . the grandson." In this version, not only did Renier finger the grandson, but by indisputably "psychic" means, since he had not even been a suspect. But the Court TV version makes clear that the police were highly suspicious of the grandson from the get-go.

Now for the smoking gun (if there is one). On Geraldo, with Renier on the stage and both Krolak and the grandson's mother -- who had encouraged that Renier be brought in on the case -- in the studio audience, Geraldo asks the mother, "Marge, are you confronted now with the incredible dilemma that the psychic has apparently fingered, or helped to accuse, your own flesh and blood of killing your parents, his grandparents?" Marge's reply: "She did not do that. She did not finger my son. She did finger the other two."

The camera cuts to Renier, who merely smiles. She had earlier told Geraldo that she retains little memory of her "psychic" readings once they are over. Nor did Krolak contest Marge's statement, although he did say immediately thereafter, "During the session . . . Noreen had mentioned that a family member [unspecified, it would seem] had brought the killer to the house." Yes, the grandson had brought his acquaintance to the house on some previous occasion to arrange for the tiling job, but Krolak made clear on the Court TV show that the grandson was definitely not in the vicinity of the house on the night of the murders. (Once again, I suspect that Renier may have learned about the prime suspects via newspaper accounts or by other prosaic means.) Moments earlier, Krolak did tell Geraldo that "I presented [Renier] with 10 photographs and she picked out the killer's picture." But there was no mention of Noreen fingering the grandson as the criminal mastermind.

So, is Noreen for real? We now know that the CBS News claim of Renier fingering the grandson as a new suspect was false. Contained within Geraldo's question to Marge was that, new suspect or not, Noreen had nonetheless fingered the grandson. But Marge stated unequivocally, and uncontradicted, that even that was false. And the sensational small-town double homicide must have received considerable press coverage over the two intervening years. Given all this, it would seem a leap of faith to conclude, as Detective Krolak has done, that genuine "psychic" power was required to obtain the sort of information that Renier had provided. Krolak had acknowledged on Geraldo that "she more or less reaffirmed what we knew previously."

Upon his discovery (several years after its 1994 publication) of my highly skeptical chapter about Renier in Psychic Sleuths: ESP and Sensational Cases, in which I discussed the Geraldo and 48 Hours programs, Krolak sent me the following e-mail in November 1999:

I came across your articles about Noreen. In your quest to debunk Noreen you had mentioned my name several times [here and here]. You didn't do very much research on my investigation of the double homicide in Albany New York in which I utilized Noreen. You quoted newspaper articles and Geraldo Rivera who by the way I had no conversation with him prior to the show or backstage. As a journalist or reporter or whatever it is you do you would think that a professional like yourself would only deal in facts. You made no attempt to contact me before doing your article.

My reply of the same date:

Thank you for your note. I did no independent research on the Albany case, nor did I claim to have done so. Instead, I presented your very positive comments, as elicited by professional interviewers, regarding Noreen's assistance in the case. It's hard to imagine how you could have been any more glowing in your praise of her had I interviewed you personally, and I am confident that my readers understand your point of view re: Noreen's role in the case.

Your note implies that I may have conveyed false, inaccurate, and/or misleading information to my readers. Your comment in this regard seems related to the matter of whether or not you had told Geraldo, prior to his show, that Noreen had fingered the grandson as a suspect. Thank you for clarifying this peripheral issue about which I included a parenthetical aside in my chapter (I did not state as a certainty that you had been Geraldo's source for this information). But your clarification begs the following questions:

   1) Even if you didn't tell Geraldo "prior to the show or backstage," were you still the one who told Geraldo (or his staff) that Noreen fingered the grandson?

   2) Were you the one who told Doug Tunnell (or his staff) that Noreen fingered the grandson?

   3) If you weren't the one who told Geraldo and Tunnell, who else could have told them? It wasn't the daughter (she adamantly denied on Geraldo's show that Noreen had fingered her son, and you -- sitting next to her -- did not contest her denial, nor did Noreen). The only other obvious source would seem to be Noreen.

   4) Was the daughter telling the truth when she adamantly contested Geraldo's statement? If so, whoever fed Geraldo and Tunnell this claim was not being truthful.

   5) If Noreen did not finger the grandson, and if Noreen is the source of untruthful information about this to two (at least) national TV shows, have you written to her to complain?

Despite a reminder e-mail the following month, I never received a reply.

One would think that Court TV's Psychic Detectives staff has watched at least a few hours of the station's daytime programming. If so, they must have encountered a cross-examination or two. How could they be unaware that the best way to get to the truth of a controversial claim -- especially if it involves supernatural powers -- is to present both sides of the issue and subject the claim to intense critical scrutiny?

One would also think that the staff would be aware of this "Psychic Detectives" section of Court TV's website, in which James Randi and I are quoted and my chapter about Renier in Psychic Sleuths is mentioned -- there are even photos of Randi, me, and the book cover (see chapters 7 and 11 of the site's section). To turn the tables on Detective Krolak, why did he not have the staff interview me -- or, better yet, the daughter -- for the March 24 program?

Read Det. Krolak's response

Return to list of Articles on Noreen Renier