Observations placeholder

Croiset the Clairvoyant - Jack Harrison Pollack

Was the Father poisoned?

Many problems arise in trying to identify criminals. "Unconscious telepathic influence” is one. It can generally be avoided by not having a detective or another consultant personally visit Croiset but, instead, sending someone who hasn't been informed of the known details. Yet even this "consultation by proxy" presents difficulties, as the following Croiset case reveals:

Due to a chain of circumstances, a Dutch businessman Mr. S., Jr., living in the town of R., suspected his stepmother of having poisoned his late father. He was even more certain of her guilt after visiting a woman psychoscopist on the advice of friends. She told Mr. S., Jr., many true facts about his deceased father which tremendously strengthened his confidence in her. When the woman sensitive finally hinted that she did not consider it impossible that Mr. S., Sr., was poisoned by his wife after a business-contract disagreement the son was convinced that his suspicion was correct.

Seeking more scientific certitude, on April 11, 1951, Mr, S., Jr., accompanied by his lawyer, visited Professor Tenhaeff in Utrecht. "I then pointed out," recalls the parapsychologist, "that I considered it probable the woman psychoscopist had secured her information telepathically from the son's own psychism because he had exerted an unconscious telepathic influence upon her about his suspicion."

Puzzled by this, Mr. S., Jr., and his lawyer requested Tenhaeff to conduct a second experiment with another paragnost whom he should choose. The cautious University of Utrecht investigator warned his two visitors that there were even risks in a second experiment. But, he agreed to conduct it.

Dr. Tenhaeff chose Croiset and arranged an experimentwith him for the next day, when neither the businessman, his lawyer, or even the professor himself would be present. "On April 12, 1951, when I was away from Utrecht," he reports, "my wife handed Croiset a passport photograph of the deceased father as an inductor. Mr. S., Jr., had left this photograph at my request. I had told my wife nothing about the envelope's contents or the case. Several hours after Mr S., Jr., and his lawyer had left, I gave my wife the photograph in a sealed envelope and asked her to take it to Croiset the next day for 'treatment.'"

Based on the facts recorded by Mrs. Tenhaeff, the paragnost had many correct first impressions about the late Mr. S. and his environment. Croiset began by saying that the man in the photograph had died of heart failure. This jibed with the judgment of the deceased man's family doctor. But immediately afterwards, the idea of "poisoning" also impressed itself upon the clairvoyant, although he could not explain it, Croiset then declared that he could not secure any more images, saying, "This man surely died in his bed from heart failure." But the puzzled paragnost added, "Nevertheless, this case also has something to do with poisoning."

Two weeks later, on April 25, Professor Tenhaeff drove with Croiset to the town of R. to visit Mr. S., Jr., and his lawyer in accordance with their arrangement. A new consultation then took place in the lawyer's home. Now Croiset emphasized that the matter was clear to him: he flatly stated that the father had died of a heart attack. His earlier confusion had stemmed from the fact that the son had been so filled with the idea of poisoning by the stepmother that Croiset had been made aware of this, too.

"OnIy when I met the businessman," Croiset later explained, "did I understand why my second incorrect impression about the poisoning came from my telepathic contact with him."

This telepathic confusion does not always happen, fortunately. "There are many cases on record where the suspicions of a consultant were in no way able to lead a paragnost astray," reminds Professor Tenhaeff.