By Marc

There is indeed a difference between fishing and trying to make sense of a symbol. If they were receiving a symbol they could just relate what they see and allow you to understand the significance. If they are truly messages from a loved one then the symbols they send would be ones that make sense to you. But that is not what they do, they give a long line of questioning.

There is an interesting contradiction here. They claim to be able to give amazingly accurate information from the 'other side', but at the same time they also say the communication is in symbols that make it hard to understand. Which is it then? One thing I see John do often is give very vague descriptions of a person, working with the sitter until they have someone in mind that fits the description, and then asks "Is this person departed?". Can't he tell? If the sitter answers 'Yes' then invariably John says the spirit is present. If he could see the spirit then why did he need to ask? If the answer was 'no' then whatever spirit he is talking to is referring to the person for some reason. This seems to be very clear he is giving responses made to fit whatever the sitter says.

There are a lot of tricks that can be used besides just asking questions. That is why it is important to record a reading to see exactly what it was that was said and when it was said. Very often there are questions and statements made that are subtly fishing, but the sitter tends to forget about them, especially any that were wrong. They are so excited about the few that seemed to be right that is all they remember. Take for example Van Praagh's appearance on 20/20. An older couple felt JVP really did contact their departed son. But when the tape is played back you see JVP making dozens of leading questions concerning the cause of death. It looked like a game of 20 questions with him going through so many 'impressions' until he finally got it right.

You said you live a unique lifestyle. But you are still human and there are many things about being human that are not unique, even though they can seem they are. There is a well-known psychological quirk known as the Forer effect. This is the tendency of people to take vague and general statements as applying specifically to themselves. Add in any information gained through fishing or leading questions, and it is very easy to come up with what seems to be startlingly accurate information.

Not really, because they don't have to have a lot of people involved in it. In most cases they do not need any accomplices. One former medium who wrote about his experiences as a fraud in the book 'The Psychic Mafia' mentioned how he and the other frauds had only trusted people in on the secret. In some cases even the medium's spouses did not know they were fakes. Plus there is the possibility of employment contracts. Someone who would work close enough with John or other mediums to know the truth could have been required to sign a contract of non-disclosure. They could come forth, but that would open them up to a major court case. Then there are people who DO come forward. The fact checker on one show came forward on how JVP repeatedly got specific information from her and other people about the sitters before the show. This fact hasn't affected his business much.

Btw, did you ever see the disclaimer before John's show?

"The producer has relied heavily on the contributions of John Edward and other third parties in the creation of this program, which has been produced for entertainment purposed only. Materials and opinions presented in this program by John Edward and other third parties, including statements, predictions, documents, photos, and video footage come solely from the respective third party sources and are not the views, opinions, and the responsibility of the producer and, are not meant or intended to be a form of advice, instruction, suggestion, counsel or factual statement in any way whatsoever."

The agreement does not have to say anything about fraud. It could word it as 'Trade Secrets' or other generalized statements about the private practice of the medium. Some celebrities have such contracts with their employees stating they cannot reveal anything they find while working on their job. This is to protect them from people getting jobs as house cleaners who are looking for something to sell to the tabloids.

The legality of such a contract doesn't matter so much as the person signing it believes it is binding. A well known cult I study uses contracts of this and other types to pressure people into silence all the time.

There are frauds in many fields, but then again most fields have a way of determining the frauds from the genuine articles. No such practice in mediumship, and rarely do you hear one medium denouncing another as a fraud. While a guilty conscious might one day get to a fraud, as it did with the medium in the Psychic Mafia book, by far there are more that never feel such guilt. Million dollar book deals and TV appearances tend to keep that annoying conscience quiet.

Nothing fishy about the disclaimer? Even when it outright states that nothing there is to be taken in any way as reality?

It's hard to comment on the 'amazing hits' Suzane might have gotten without knowing details. Such as how much contact and prior knowledge she might have had beforehand. The frauds keep extensive files on their customers, and many share those files with others.

Guesses can also be made by dress, speech, ethnic distinctions. Like a claimed psychic could have a sitter who is a woman, age 30-40, and notice she is not wearing a wedding ring. An almost guaranteed hit would be to say she has relationship concerns. A little demographic research and you can find all kinds of likely things to talk about.

One thing I do recall is on one show demonstrating the techniques used by frauds, they showed clips of Suzane doing exactly what the magician demonstrated. Like saying the person kept a momento of their loved one, the sitter broke down and talked about a pocket knife. Suzane went on saying how she sensed it was a small item like a knife. However, we don't know if that was what she would actually say, she didn't give any details till the person gave them away, then claimed credit for them.

- Marc