A Professional Response to the Dismissal of Unconventional Investigative Techniques
By Elliott K. Van Dusen
Recent commentary by former FBI Special Agent Maureen O’Connell in a NewsNation article suggesting that psychics are “very few, if ever, fruitful” in criminal investigations reflects a familiar institutional position within law enforcement. Professional skepticism is essential to policing. Institutional blindness, however, is not.
The law enforcement argument is straightforward: psychic tips consume manpower, divert resources, and rarely produce actionable results. There is truth in that concern. High-profile cases attract unsolicited information from self-proclaimed psychics, much of it vague, untestable, or emotionally driven.
However, the public deserves a more complete discussion.
Modern policing is built upon forensic science, digital intelligence, surveillance, behavioral analysis, and structured investigative procedures. These tools are measurable, accountable, and admissible in court. They are, and must remain, the foundation of criminal investigation.
No responsible professional is suggesting that psychic mediums, remote viewers, or dowsers replace forensic work.
The issue is not replacement. It is supplementation in rare and extenuating circumstances.
The historical record is more nuanced than the phrase “very few, if ever, fruitful” suggests. While inconsistent and controversial, there are documented instances in which investigators have reported that unconventional input helped narrow search areas, identify overlooked geographic zones, or refocus investigative attention in stalled missing-person cases. These instances are not statistically dominant, nor do they establish courtroom reliability. But they do exist.
To deny that record entirely is not skepticism, it is selectivity.
The U.S. government’s Cold War remote viewing program offers a useful analogy. It was ultimately discontinued not because no anomalous data was ever produced, but because its operational reliability was inconsistent and difficult to standardize. In other words, the phenomenon was not considered impossible; it was considered unreliable at scale.
That distinction matters.
In criminal investigations, many information sources are unreliable at scale. Anonymous tips, confidential informants, behavioral science assessments, and even polygraph results vary widely in credibility. Yet agencies do not categorically dismiss these inputs. They assess them, corroborate them, and either pursue or discard them through structured evaluation.
When it comes to psychic-derived information, however, agencies often adopt a reflexive posture: public denial, private discomfort, and no formal policy framework. The deeper issue is not simply skepticism, but a lack of institutional education regarding anomalous cognition research and the absence of structured protocols for responsibly working with and assessing psi-derived information.
The mature question is not whether extrasensory perception is metaphysically real. The question is how institutions govern unconventional information once it enters investigative workflows. Without proper education and structured guidelines, evaluation becomes inconsistent. Some officers quietly document such tips. Others ignore them outright. Still others engage informally while denying involvement publicly for fear of ridicule.
True skepticism is investigative. It asks questions. It tests claims. It evaluates data. Categorical dismissal without examination is not scientific skepticism; it is cultural reflex.
If unconventional information is ever reviewed, it must meet strict safeguards. It must be
supplementary and never a substitute for forensic investigation. It must be evaluated privately and internally, without public spectacle. It should be specific, corroborated, and must not contaminate evidence or witness testimony.
Under those conditions, unconventional input becomes what it should be: another external tip, subject to corroboration or rejection through conventional means.
High-profile cases intensify public emotion. Families seek answers wherever they can. Responding to that impulse with institutional ridicule does not strengthen public trust; it reinforces the perception that agencies are closed to inquiry beyond their cultural comfort zone.
Law enforcement has evolved before. Behavioral profiling was once viewed skeptically. Criminal psychology was once considered soft science. Today, both operate within structured investigative frameworks.
The debate over psychic consultation should not be framed as “science versus superstition.” It should be framed as institutional maturity versus reflexive dismissal.
Conventional methods will always remain the foundation of criminal investigation. But in rare and extraordinary cases, particularly long-term missing person investigations in which conventional avenues have been exhausted, a structured, policy-driven approach to evaluating unconventional information may be operationally defensible.
The professional middle ground is neither blind acceptance nor reflexive rejection.
It is disciplined inquiry.
And disciplined inquiry is the foundation of both science and good policing.
Elliott K. Van Dusen is the Corporate Director of Paranormal Phenomena Research &
Investigation (PPRI) and a retired Corporal with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where he served 15 years, including assignments in Major Crime.
