CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A CLOSED
MINDED MATERIALIST SKEPTIC
CLOSED MINDED SKEPTIC
J RANDI CROSS-EXAMINED BY LAWYER VICTOR ZAMMIT
(This is a continuation from
For those who never heard of J Zwingi
Randi before, below is a very brief 'cross-examination'
on just a few issues. For decades closed minded skeptic
Randi is on record for organizing hoaxes to fool, cheat,
mislead and deceive innocent people. He has viciously attacked
mediums, psychics and afterlife investigators. This is a
cross-examination on just some of the things he has said,
done and implied. He continues to deny the existence of
the paranormal even when there is objective and repeatable
evidence for the paranormal and the afterlife produced by
scientists and empiricists - and lawyers.
would be fairly close to a real cross-examination- the information
is taken from what J. Randi has ALREADY ACCEPTED and IMPLIED.
Some very minor flexibility and embellishment consistent
with J. Randi’s beliefs and record have been used
for easier reading and understanding of the script. In no
way this closed minded skeptic's beliefs are misrepresented.
Words in caps are there for emphasis - very important in
Victor: How are you feeling to-day
Randall James Hamilton Zwinge Randi?
Randi: If that is a sarcastic comment
implying that you don’t think I’m well, sorry
to disappoint you, I’m very well …
Victor: Well? I was hoping you’d
say that! You'll need that to-day. Just for the record,
you are well physically, psychologically and mentally ?
Randi (very confidently):
Never been better…
Victor: How's your memory to-day?
Randi: .... oh OK ....
Victor: That’s really good
to hear. You stated yesterday that in some forty years you
never came across any paranormal or afterlife evidence …
you said that - right?
Randi: Yes, that’s right …
Victor: For the record, you are not a scientist or a lawyer
or an academic professional?
Randi: No, I’m not.
Victor: Are you formally qualified
with a degree in Scientific Method?
Randi: No I’m not
Victor: Do you have a qualification in statistics?
means you are NOT qualified, not technically competent in
how to conduct a proper scientific experiment to validate
any phenomena at professional level?
Randi: I have my ways of testing….
Victor: You would have come across
that Sydney lawyer’s book A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE
FOR THE AFTERLIFE – yes or no?
Randi: hesitating … yes ..
many years ago …
Victor: And that lawyer states he
has outlined more than twenty different areas of afterlife
evidence. He also claims that you FAILED to rebut any part
of that evidence in ten years- according to his website
some THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHT days.
Victor: Yes or no?
Randi: Yes, yes he states something
like that ….
Victor: The record shows that for
over TEN YEARS he challenged you to rebut the evidence for
the afterlife… if you did, you would have collected
a cool MILLION DOLLARS. Why didn't you take him on?
Randi: There’s no evidence…
Victor: (giving a copy of the
book to Randi and one to the judge … 'item 3 Your
Honor’ ): Your Honor, could I get the court attendant
to give a copy of this book to members of the jury?
Mr Randi, could you open at page
3 headline CONTENTS … Now do you see on page 3 some
TWENTY areas of afterlife evidence starting with Chapter
3 MATERIALIZATIONS … Chapter 4 Electronic Voice Phenomena,
Chapter 5 Instrumental Trans-communication… and so
on – to Chapter 25 on page 4 about Quantum Physics
and the Afterlife….
Now Randi, as His Honor and the
jury members are browsing through the book looking at page
3 and 4 …CAN YOU SEE ALL THESE
AREAS OF AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE THAT MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE
CAN SEE- YES OR NO?
Randi: …. There is no evidence
Victor: Can you identify for the
jury just one aspect of the TWENTY AREAS of afterlife objective
and repeatable evidence that is not scientific or empirical?
Randi:...I don’t remember
anything about that book …
Victor (sternly): Did you read this
Randi: (Quiet) ….
Victor: You are on oath: answer
the question YES OR NO!
Randi: Not really … but I
skimmed through it …
Victor: So, WITHOUT READING the
book, WITHOUT having studied the presented evidence, WITHOUT
checking with scientists about the evidence, without REFUTING
the evidence, you have come to a negative conclusion? …
Randi: I wouldn't waste my time.
There is no afterlife…
Victor: So you keep on saying ...
you came to negative conclusions about the paranormal and
afterlife evidence WITHOUT READING THE EVIDENCE?
Randi: (Does not answer)
Victor: (looks at the judge)
Judge: Yes, answer the question
Randi: (reluctantly) .. yes... that's right...
Victor: Let's move on.... What is
your claim to being able to test psychics and mediums?
Randi: I’m a specialist in
deception … I..
Victor: … a specialist in
PERFORMING DECEPTION did you say?
Randi: In DETECTING deception ..
Victor: If you are a specialist
in detecting deception, that would also mean that you yourself
have the professional expertise in how to CHEAT, how to
LIE, how to be DISHONEST, how to fool and how to DECEIVE
people - and how to deceive the jury and the court –
yes or no please?
Randi: Yes….But I never deceive
Randi: No never…
Victor: We’ll see …Have
you ever intentionally misled the public, YES or NO!
Randi: Yes … as a magician
one could say yes …
Victor: When you are NOT acting
as a magician, have you intentionally deceived or tried
to deceive people for whatever reason – you are on
oath – yes or no?
Randi: I don’t want to answer
the question … (Victor looks at the judge)
Judge: Yes, yes, (to the witness)
Answer the question …
Randi: Yes, kind of, but I need
to explain ..
Victor: NO! The question calls for
a yes/no answer. You answered yes …
Randi: (quiet) ...
Victor: ( looking at some documents).
Mr Randi, are you of good character?
Judge: …. You do not have
to answer that question ..
Victor: Your Honor – may I
approach the bench …, (Victor to the judge)
.. the witness will not deny – in fact he will admit
that in the media and in his many publications he has expressly
stated and imputed that he is of good character –
being the chairman of a technically charitable organization.
Accordingly, I submit I do have a right to put that question
to the witness about what he publicly stated and imputed
about himself …
Judge: Yes, yes all right …proceed…
Victor: Tell us the truth, the whole
truth Mr Randi are you of good character?
Randi: (Hesitates ..) Yes
…I am not a criminal if that is what you’re
Victor: Are you an honest man?
Randi: … what do you mean
by an honest man?
Victor: You know what I mean by
an honest man; someone who does not cheat, lie, deceive,
steal, get into public trouble, act maliciously at the expense
of others ... are you an honest person just answer YES or
Randi: Yes, I am an honest man …
Victor: Have you ever been DISHONEST,
trying to intentionally cheat the public …?
Randi: I don’t have to incriminate
myself answering that ..
Victor: Incriminate yourself by
refusing to tell jury you that you are not dishonest? Did
you ever lie to the public?
Randi: Everybody lies …
Victor: Everybody? Including the
His Honor and the jury ….
Randi: (Hesitates) Including ALL
Victor: The Judge is a lawyer …
No, you don’t have to answer that … the judge
and the jury heard your answer already … (Victor
looking at documents on his desk) … Tell us Mr
Randi, did you ever ADMIT in public that you are a professional
LIAR, and a CHEAT?
Randi: Yes, but that was in relation
to my work as a magician …
Victor (looking as his notes): DID you not put on record
- describing what you do - in the Diner's Club as a 'PROFESSIONAL
Randi: ... That was a while ago ... that was a gimmick ...
Victor: (looking at his notes) Describing yourself
as a CHARLATAN ... 'one who lays claim to knowledge and
skill which he does NOT possess … a QUACK… unqualified
and untrained practitioner of a skilled profession'?
Randi: As I said ... a gimmick ..
Victor: .... So, you are professionally
trained to make fools out of people everywhere?
Rand: Yes … I suppose so …
Victor: But you don’t do magic
any more .. Have you ever been involved in organizing a
public nuisance - public mischief, yes or no?
Randi: (remains quiet, looks
Victor: All right, let’s put it another way.
Is it not on public record that you organized HOAXES?
Randi: Yes, I’ll answer that
question (boasting) – yes, I did.
Victor: Could you speak louder please,
did you organize public HOAXES?
Randi: Yes, I organized public hoaxes ...
Victor: And are you an expert in presenting illusions?
Randi: YES I’m an expert in
presenting illusions …
Victor: And you do agree (Victor
reading from his notes on his desk) that illusion is
something that deceives by producing a false or misleading
impression of reality?
Randi: Yes .. I guess so ...
Victor: … So that we know
what specifically we are talking about, a hoax (looking
at his notes) is, to quote, “To deceive, dupe,
take in by misrepresentation’ – Webster’s
International dictionary … You will have to agree
with that, yes?
Randi: (hesitantly) …Yes
Victor: In answering yes to that
question does it not follow then that you then agree that
when you say you organized public hoaxes, you duped and
deceived, you were DISHONEST, you LIED, you CHEATED, you
Randi: Aren’t you using strong
words for a hoax. I was honest in what I did.
Victor: Ohhhh!!!!!!!, you were HONEST
in your DECEPTION?
... That is the meaning of the word HOAX … Let me
remind you are on oath – it IS on record you instigated
and organized serious public hoaxes .. YES or NO?
Randi: Yes …
Victor: Would you call yourself
an honest liar, honest charlatan?
Randi: I'll have to think about
JULY 1st 2011
PART 3 NEXT WEEK