This finding is supported by federal court records uncovered by investigators. They examined records of many U.S. families who wrote $1000 checks (and larger) to Noreen Renier to find their children from 1985 through late 2016. No families whose checks were deposited into accounts by Noreen Renier have ever credited Noreen Renier with locating their missing child.

In fact across all families --- even those who paid cash to Noreen Renier and notified a U.S. law enforcement agency of a missing family member --- Renier has failed to find anyone. [Includes both court records and media reports from September 1982 to December 23, 2022].

To locate many familes who paid Noreen Renier, their deposited bank checks were opened under federal court subpoenas during Noreen Renier's most recent bankruptcy court filings as the debtor. Hundreds of deposits for her services were examined. Renier's private and business banking records across multiple U.S. states and various banks were allowed under federal court subpoenas. The shocks included finding that Noreen Renier hid from the federal bankruptcy court one checking account alone which included deposits from families with deposits unreported to the court exceeding $100,000.00. The federal judge ruled Noreen Renier had misled the court and was not a credible witness.

In one example shown in the photo at left, the parents of Tiffany Sessions hired Renier to find their daughter in 1989. That year Noreen Renier aroused the media and told reporter Jack Alexander that "I have very good vibes about this case . . . I know I can find the young lady.”  But Noreen Renier repeatedly failed over almost 25 years to solve the case and locate Tiffany Sessions.

In 2014 the Alachua County Sheriff updated their 25-year investigation into the disappearance of Tiffany Sessions.  And they --- without Noreen Renier--- identified Paul Rowles, a convicted rapist and murderer as the all-but-certain killer. Rowles died of cancer in prison in 2013.  Yet even in late December 2022 no one knows the location of Tiffany Sessions.

Officer James McDaniel stated in 1994 "There are frauds and con-artists who prey on older citizens. But the most disgraceful I've run into was a female psychic who preyed on this family with promises to find their daughter. She had the nerve to charge them $1000 for a few minutes of hocus pocus over the phone." 

GNR researchers asked Noreen Renier from 2015 to 2022 "Where is Tiffany Sessions? Why did you fail to find Tiffany Sessions? You've made many 'I can find them' statements to the media yet there are no reports of you ever leading police directly to a missing child or lost person.  Why? You've even claimed to be able to use hanging pendulums over maps to find missing persons.

Click here to see original article published in the Daily Advance Newspaper from 1-31-1984

So Ms. Renier, why do you have a zero track record and 100% failure record with your pendulum powers too?

Noreen Renier has failed to answer these questions. And there is no evidence she has ever returned even 1% of an estimated $285,000.00 that families paid her even though she never found their missing family members. The failures of her "super psychic" paranormal powers and the federal court rulings that she is not credible is a warning to avoid her exaggerated claims and services.

Noreen Renier testified in an Oregon court that she was not responsible for giving erroneous information to reporters and journalists.  She was asked in court when she hands a reporter previously published stories about herself with errors, and that reporter then incorporates those errors again, “do you feel any responsibility to let them know that the material you are giving them may not be accurate?  Do you feel responsible --- a responsibility to provide either accurate material to the press or to alert them if some of the material you are giving them is not accurate?

Her answer, under oath, and before a jury was “The material I give to the press is not for them to copy, it is for them to get an idea of what I have done to ask me questions about it.”

[Follow-up question] “Do you review your press clippings for accuracy and take them out if they are not accurate?”

[Renier]  “I would have no press clippings.”

[Attorney] “And you don’t in any way indicate to the new reporter that this may or may not be accurate?”

[Renier]  “No.”

[Attorney] So just as a matter of policy, you do not concern yourself with alerting reporters that material you’re giving them is accurate?

[Renier]  No, they’re supposed to be checking it out for themselves, right?

[The Above exchange is from the legal deposition of Noreen Renier in the Circuit Court of the State Oregon, page 28 and 29).

Our researchers uncovered dozens of exaggerations or falsified claims Noreen Renier has repeated to the press, on television, and in her books. Our estimated match-up figures are based on claims Noreen Renier made across her four most detailed cases, including the airplane case documented on this web site.

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response thru December 23, 2022.

For over 2 decades Noreen Renier's personal website has claimed that she's worked with “state Law Enforcement Agencies in 38 states” (within the U.S.A).  And Noreen Renier has repeatedly claimed that among her "over 700" and "more than hundreds of cases" that her largest segment of hires come from law enforcement agences.  She's even recorded [link below] saying "police hire me --- that's usually 70% of the time." Using this "70%" figure researchers should have found at least 26 state law enforcement agencies that hired her directly.  But they confirmed, as others have before, that not one in the 50 state law enforcement agencies across the U.S.A. has ever hired her. So what causes Noreen Renier to falsely claim that 70% of her hired cases are from police rather than the more truthful figure of 0.2% or even dead zero?

In actuality even her "70%" hired figure is on the low end of her deception scale. In a news article in the Orlando Sentinal newspaper, reporter Charles Fishman noted "90 percent of her work these days is for police agencies, including a recent Daytona Beach case. She charges $350 a case and usually works over the phone." Yet the Daytona Beach Police deny they've ever paid $350 for active detective case work by Noreen Renier. They also stated that they do not hire persons who claim to use paranormal psychic powers to speak to the dead for their investigations. So Noreen Renier at 90% isn't even consistent across her exaggerated percentage shares for case hires from police! And if her "more than hundreds" of cases reflect a bare minimum of at least one thousand --- she's apparently lied about being hired by police over a thousand times!   In her own court testimony she admitted she considers a hiring as simply any interaction that gets her future publicity, not an officially sanctioned, documented, and paid job. Thus if she walks into a police agency and shouts about a murder vision at their front desk and then walks out, in her mind that can be a hiring. No money needs to be exchanged, no hiring document processed, and no official case work requested by anyone but herself. Noreen Renier has testified that when she works such "unsolved cases" they don't even need to match any official police cases. She considers just walking in --- completely unsolicited by police --- and tossing out her own scattered psychic thoughts for a few minutes as "working a case" and being hired. If she simply walks up to a front information desk inside a law enforcement agency and tells a clerk of her visions of dead murder victims or in her mind hearing terrorists plotting murder --- she believes that can be called a police hiring. Indeed Noreen Renier previously testified that she's a medium with spiritual entities within her that speak to the dead and sense the minds of living criminals.It doesn't even matter if any actual police personnel meet her or know who she is when she walks in or leaves. Or if she calls a police office and ends her call without giving her name. Or even if police consider her a prank or not sober. This is the reality behind her "more than hundreds" of police hirings and her "dramatic work" alongside police. It also explains her refusal to provide a list of even 25 out of her "more than hundreds" of police hirings to investigators. And why she very reluctantly admitted in her most recent bankruptcy filing that she had no earnings across years from any police agency. Not a single dollar though she claims she charges $500 to $1000 for a few minutes with police agencies per case.

Several of our investigative researchers spent more than 400 hours reviewing over 5000 pages of court transcripts and orders.  This included filings from 16 different courts across six different states.  They concluded that she exaggerates and creates bogus involvememt with law enforcement agencies.  They also note that Noreen Renier admitted in testimony to keeping poor records on her "more than hundreds of cases."  Those investigative researchers believe her direct hirings since 1985 across all United States public law enforcement agencies (at all levels, including federal, state, city, county, municipal, and township) are at or near zero --- not over 500 or more out of "more than 700" as she claims.

In the Jackson County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon Noreen Renier said [Court transcript, page 60] while under oath:

“Yes, and I work on so many police cases I really – If you showed me them right now—some of them---I would say, ‘Oh, yes, hundreds.'  I mean, you are all questioning that I worked on hundreds.  I’ve worked on more than hundreds of cases.”

The attorney in attempting to probe how accurately she kept track of her "more than hundreds of cases" then asked:

Question: When you work for a police agency you don’t bother to find out who you are talking to or what agency they represent?  You don’t know whether it is the state police or a municipality or county sheriff or anything?

Noreen Renier answer: No.

And shortly afterward she admitted under oath that after she worked on about "35 or 40 cases, I had them all listed.  I stopped keeping a list of them after those original. . ." [Legal Deposition of Noreen Renier in the Jackson County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon,  page 11,  and 77 and 78].

In a June 2006 recorded interview on Contact Talk Radio she even claimed she received "20 to 30" cases at a time from a single state! Another bold lie.




Our researchers confirmed in April 2015 that no records of her "more than hundreds" of case hirings exist (according to her own testimony), and she failed to make any listings public.  Noreen Renier admitted in testimony she didn't even know who such agencies might be or where they are. And she admittedt she had no listings. We further found that on May 16, 1989 she took the stand before the Honorable Richard Stair, Jr., a federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Tennessee, Northern Division, in Knoxville Tennesee. While on the stand she was asked:

Question: “Ms. Renier, when you say you will not accept a case unless an officially authorized representative of the agency having jurisdiction contacts you directly, you really don’t mean that then, do you?

Answer: Ninety percent of the time that is the rule I follow. I break the rule occasionally, as I did with Jessica and a few other cases I have worked on, but ninety percent of the time I work through the police for many reasons.

Question: Would you read the third paragraph on the first page of this document, please?

Answer: Okay. . . .Ms. Renier will not accept. . . This is sort of blacked out right here. . .

Question: I will read it for you and you can tell me –

Answer: Okay, please.

Question: “Ms. Renier will not accept a case unless an officially authorized representative of the agency having jurisdiction contacts her directly.”

Answer: Yes.

Question: Now --

Answer: In ninety percent, ninety-five percent of my cases, that is true, yes, sir.”

[GNR investigators in late 2022 estimated that across her “more than hundreds” of cases and or “more than 700 cases”, greater than 99.8% of all the agencies did NOT officially authorize her as a representative on a case. A few noted she was hired by families who then asked police for help on their behalf. This is a complete reversal of her own testimony.]

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

Unknown to Noreen Renier supporters is that though she testified she worked on three F.B.I cases, the F.B.I. has stated both in testimony from Special Agent Robert Ressler and in statements by his supervisor, Chief Roger Depue, that she has never been an F.B.I. investigator. F.B.I. officials have also publicly stated that she was never sanctioned by the F.B.I. to work any case.  Of particular interest to many of her followers may be the fact that she actually admitted in court that she exaggerated this "investigator" relationship in her promotional materials.  Even the title of a book authored by her and sold in France is ‘Medium: Enquetrice pour le F.B.I.’ which translates to Noreen Renier: Medium Investigator for the F.B.I.  Here are questions and her answers while under oath in the Jackson County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon.

Question: Did you give [the F.B.I. through an agent] any information that assisted anybody in any way?

Answer: I have no idea.

Question: What state did the crime occur in?

Answer: California.

Question: What city?

Answer: I have no idea.

Question: What [F.B.I.] agent did you work with?

Answer: I do not know.

Question: . . . And you were paid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Answer: No.

Question: When the family [pays] you to assist them and an agent from the F.B.I. comes out, do you consider that working for the F.B.I.?

Answer: Yes, that is who I worked for in the room, he questioned me, he is the one who took the information.

Question: So you weren't just giving him assistance, you were working for the F.B.I.?

Answer: That is how I would say it, yes.

Question: What other cases have you worked on for the F.B.I.?

Answer: I really can't recall any others.

Question: So when it [Renier's promotional advertising] said "several cases" for the F.B.I. that may be one of the exaggerations you were talking about earlier.

Answer: Yes.

Our researchers found in the court transcripts from the same courtroom the testimony of F.B.I. Special Agent Robert Ressler.  Under oath he told the court "…she does not work on F.B.I. cases. . . .She never really worked for the F.B.I.” And yet a GNR researcher also found in the court records a court exhibit marked as Mrs. Renier's press packet. In it she states "The majority of [my] cases have been in Virginia and four other states, and several for the Federal Bureau of Investigation." We conclude therefore that Noreen Renier has repeatedly for decades lied to the public about doing case work for the F.B.I.

While testifying in the federal court in Knoxville Tennesee, she agreed that she had been claiming to work on “several” cases for the F.B.I. and an attorney asked her while under oath:

Question: Now would it be accurate to say that this [a statement from you] that you have worked on cases for the F.B.I.?

Answer: Yes. At that time I thought I was working officially for the F.B.I. and that is when [F.B.I. Special Agent] Ressler, I showed him my material [a self-marketing brochure produced by Noreen Renier] and he asked me to change it.

Question: Now when did you stop claiming you worked for the F.B.I.?

[Your answer] . . .I stopped after it was brought to my attention in the Court.

Question: At the trial itself?

Answer: At the trial itself.

Question: That is when you stopped making the statement: “I worked for the F.B.I.?”

Answer: [Becoming angry] I don’t think I ever said I have worked – Yes, I stopped after the trial, all right?

[GNR investigator: But for more than 25 years after Noreen Renier testified in this federal court that she stopped saying she worked for the F.B.I. we found over 60 statements that she continues to market herself as working with the F.B.I. including on her website in 2019.]

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

GNR researchers uncovered the following in Noreen Renier's testimony in the Jackson County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon:

Question: Who was the [F.B.I] agent then that you worked with out of Atlanta, was there an agent out of Atlanta you worked with?

Answer: He received the information and one time I spoke to him on the phone, I don't know his name.

Question: . . .And you indicated that you were paid on this one?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Who paid you?

Answer: Joe. [An F.B.I. agent at the F.B.I. Training Academy]

Question: Out of his own pocket?

Answer: He got the money from the F.B.I. in Atlanta.

Question: Okay. So was it a check?

Answer: Cash.

Question: The I.R.S. doesn't like that. Do you have any records to show you were paid by the F.B.I.?

Answer: No.

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

During a Coast to Coast AM broadcast interview on February 28, 2015 --- which ended in the morning hours of March 1, 2015 --- psychic actress Noreen Renier spoke to host Dave Schrader about flight 370.

Malaysia Airlines flight 370 disappeared March 8, 2014, so her visions had developed more than a year after the crash, and across hundreds of media reports.

When asked when the plane would be found in the early hours of March 1, 2015 Noreen Renier agreed with the host it would be during 2015. That answer according to a leading critic, John Merrell, provided exactly 10 months remaining in 2015, or 10% chance per month. Ms. Renier opted to answer in “October or November, October" providing a one-in-five chance of being correct, or a 20% chance at being “dead on accurate”.

It’s important Merrell states on the International Skeptics Forum that Noreen Renier didn’t include December 2015 --- which would have raised her chances to 30% --- but instead pushed October as the most likely indicating “..Yes, Yes, I feel like in October." Thus when the plane was not found at the end of December 2015 she failed on 10 out 10 months, scoring a flat zero.

Noreen Renier also failed to vision the discovery on July 29 2015 of the plane’s right wing flaperon being found on an island in the western Indian Ocean --- about 2,500 miles west of the area where the plane's presumed to have hit the water. Indeed the flaperon section was determined to have been floating for months before reaching shoreline. Yet Renier on March 1, 2015 visioned the initial discovery differently. She stated "So I feel like when you find the plane -- when they find the plane –it’s not going to be all broken up and sprayed. . . it’s going to be like it was parked. . .or like down the runway."

Nor did Noreen Renier forecast ahead of time the additional crash pieces found in early 2016 at several beach locations and likely associated with a massive structural “break-up” of the plane hitting the Indian Ocean. Such a structural failure would not provide for finding the plane in a 'parked-like' condition.

And when asked by the Coast to Coast AM host if it was going to be found under water or on the ground Ms. Renier states "under water but under earth.. . we went under the land again.. . we weren't that far from land." However Merrell in 2018 noted the parts including the flaperon were found neither under water nor under earth! "They floated. And they were found on land not far from water --- not the other way around."

Noreen Renier’s paranormal visionary "psychic" foresight about flight 370 has been only repeatedly wrong. This marks her fourth in a series of airplane crashes where she’s remarkably scored less than chance in her guesswork and delusionary visions as noted elsewhere on this Global Net Research website.

From 2006 to 2015 six out of six United States federal judges have ruled against Noreen Renier and ordered judgments against her.. One judge in his ruling declared Ms. Renier was not a credible witness (and she was the sole defendant and there were no other witnesses!) and that she had misled his court. Years earlier Ms. Renier testified in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Jackson (USA) that she used exaggeration as part of her promotional materials and technique. Seated before the jury she admitted in testimony when asked if “in fact you used exaggeration as part of your technique” and with a follow-up “Did you say that; that you used exaggeration?” that she did. But that admission by Noreen Renier's only came after several minutes of evasive responses on the stand and then finally in an angry tone ---after being quoted from earlier testimony admitting she used exaggeration--- she exclaimed “You just quoted me, Yes!” [From Noreen Renier deposition, trial transcript pages 93-94, with her reaction and tone supported by two eye-witnesses in court].

Yet over the past decade Noreen Renier has been silent about her use of exaggerations, never mentioning them on her website. Those rulings continue to stand as of January 21, 2019 and she ended appeals in 2012. When asked about these issues publicly in 2014 Noreen Renier said "I am a real psychic detective and have been working with law enforcement agencies all across the USA. I'm real and you are listening to lies."

GNR investigators found the following testimony when Noreen Renier took the stand before the Honorable Richard Stair, Jr., a federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Tennessee, Northern Division, in Knoxville Tennesee. She was asked [page 73 of the court transcript]:

Question [from attorney Philip Lomonaco]: So you are aware that there are exaggerations in [your] promotional package?

Answer: I think there is exaggeration in any promotional material, yes, sir, I sure do.

Question: And that is the same material that you have handed out to people?

Answer: Yes, sir.

Question: Well --

Answer: I think there is exaggerations in any advertisement and on TV, in the newspaper. You tell me one advertisement or one material, incuding your client’s ---

The Judge: Now Ms. Renier --- The witness: I am sorry, I apologize.

The Judge: Just answer Mr. Lomonaco’s questions. Let’s not get into an exchange of philosophies with Mr. Lomonaco.

The witness: I am sorry. I am just upset.

Question: Ms. Renier, what besides your promotional package do you rely on to tell people who you are and what you do?

Answer: Word of mouth.

In May 2016 Noreen Renier was asked if she agreed that she continues to exaggerate and deceive the public.  Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

Our research staff first encountered Noreen Renier's claim of working with autistic children in promotional materials she used to solicit her clairvoyant and medium ("talking to the dead') services.  We then highlighted testimony she provided while under oath about her work. Her brochure stated: "One of the greatest gifts that Noreen Renier has is her work with disturbed children, particularly autistics." Here is testimony she provided in her legal deposition for the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, for the County of Jackson.

Question: Did you ever seek --- how is it that. . .families happen to come to you?

Answer: My radio show, they had heard me and listened to my radio show.

Question: Are those the only two instances you can remember working with austistic children?

Answer: That is the only two autistics that I recall.

Question: When your promotional material indicates that one of the --- one of your greatest areas is working with disturbed children, particularly autistic, specifically we are talking about two people -- would that be another exaggeration we were talking about?

Answer: No, I love working with autistic children, and anyone that the average person can't help I like.

Question: Have you ever volunteered your services to groups that deal specifically with autistic children?

Answer: No.

Question: Have you ever made yourself available in any way to groups that try to aid autistic children?

Answer: No.

Question: What did you do when you worked with the [two] autistic children?

Answer: I tried to get into their heads to see how they were perceiving reality and how they were seeing, I did that, I don't remember everything I was trying to do, a father asked me questions about his child and I would answer, they would tape these sessions and I would take the tape.

Question: Did you charge for this?

Answer: Yes.

Question: What kind of information were you able to give the parents?

Answer: I don't recall.

[GNR investigators in the Americas are concerned Noreen Renier is in a wobble zone of practicing medicine without a license.  She has previously testified that she has no degree and in one court trial held in Knoxville, Tennessee she could not, or did not wish to recall the name of her high school.  However, in another court case she stated she "graduated from the islands, Grand Cayman High School." As she was born in Turner's Falls, (Northern Massachusetts near the Connecticut River), is working with autistic children really one "of my greatest gifts" or another apparent publicity stunt?

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

In 2023 her web site falsely claims --- as it has for over 28 years --- that she's had “scientific testing” at various colleges and universities. Yet none of the colleges or universities she names on her web site has ever stated she had any paranormal abilities at all. And a faculty team at Southern Oregon State campus found her psychic abilities --- in testing procedures that she agreed beforehand were fair --- were actually below just random chance.

On her website Noreen Renier states "I subjected myself to five years of laboratory testing at PRF and at Duke University. . . in the test for psycho kinesis, the ability to influence physical matter, I was put in front of a computerized light system and asked to alter the light pattern by using my mind. I scored quite high in everything." And in her own media package that she gave out it states "...at Duke University they found that her psychic abilities were among the strongest and most predictable of those tested at that facility."

Yet when GNR investigators once again went back to her own testimony in court we found the following question and answer exchange between the defendant's attorney and Noreen Renier on the stand of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, for the County of Jackson:

Q: Don't you throughout your promotions indicate that you were tested at Duke University?

A: I was tested at Duke University as well as the Psychical Research Foundation.

Q: So you participated in research at Duke University?

A: One experiment, yes.

Q: What department was that in?

A: I don't know the department, I know the test that they did on me at Duke.

Q: What kind of tests were they?

A: They had a machine in their laboratory that could measure the wave lengths of the brain as a person was in different states of consciousness and they would have me just be Noreen and talk, they would watch where it went on the monitor, and then they would have me switch and be psychic and they saw the changes in my brain waves, the pattern or --- I don't understand exactly, but it shows that I reached another part of my mind when I was psychic, that was taken at Duke University. Some of the people from the other institutes were there involved with it.

Q: But you don't know what department it was?

A: No.

Q: When was it?

A: It had to be maybe '84, '85, something like that.

Q: Last year or the year before?

A: No, it had to be probably '83, '84, '83.

Q: Was it a result of those tests that they found that you tested so highly?

A: No, I don't think so, I think that was one of the exaggerations the girl that wrote that up did, I think they thought it was good but I don't think --

Q: So these were actually tests for psychic ability?

A: I described the test, is that what you're talking about?

[Advancing after the attorney representing Noreen Renier injected you with "I will instruct you not to answer what the purpose was if you don't know."]

Q: So is it safe to say then that you didn't go there to have your psychic ability tested?

A: No.

Q: How did you happen to go there, did they call you in or --

A: The other -- Psychical Research Foundation had been working with me for three years and I would say doing research with my mind and they thought this would be a good research project.

Q: For Duke University?

A: In conjunction with Duke.

Q: Do you know if that was part of the psychology department that was doing that?

A: I could find out for you. [Renier never followed up to any of her similar statements to provide further information.]

Q: Was there any particular person at Duke University that you worked with?

A: There was two or three from Duke.

Q: Do you remember the names?

A: No.

Q: Do you remember anything about them that would help us identify them?

A: No.

Q: Were you paid for that?

A: No.

Q:How long were you there?

A: Two, three days.

[GNR note: Noreen Renier testified to "five years of laboratory testing at PRF at Duke University. . . in the test for psycho kinesis, the ability to influence physical matter, I was put in front of a computerized light system and asked to alter the light pattern by using my mind. I scored quite high in everything." The facts show such events never happened. And on March 1, 2015 during an interview with David Schrader on the radio show 'Coast to Coast AM' Noreen Renier claimed rather than the "two, three days" she testified to, it was "7 or 8 years." GNR investigators verified that among all of the accredited testing institutions listed by Noreen Renier in early January 2023 on her web site none agrees that their institution ever sanctioned and provided "scientific testing" for paranormal powers.  Not ten.  Not six.  Not even three.  Zero.

Noreen Renier also gave a 45-minute presentation at Sturgis Hall at the University of Arkansas on February 9, 2012 and stated “Who do I call? Duke University!  They’re the head of parapsychology . . .  . . . I went back and I found out who was the head of the research department, Dr. William Roll. . .  . . .So they invited me up and that became a lifetime of my association with scientists and research. . . . They put neurons on my head.”

Again, GNR investigators confirmed with faculty at Duke University that "no one ever put neurons on her head or anyone else's head for that matter during paranormal tests. We never sanctioned such testing and Duke University never conducted any testing on her or anyone else that concluded there are people who have paranormal powers or even that such powers exist.  The woman has never been a student or faculty member on this campus.  She has for decades apparently continued in claiming a false relationship with Duke University."

And in her testimony she also stated “I gladly subjected myself to five years of laboratory testing at PRF and Duke University. They tested me for psychometry by sealing personal objects like combs and watches in envelopes; I touched them and described their owners.  They tested for telepathy by having me identify symbols on cards in another room.  In the test for psychokinesis, [an alleged ability to alter physical objects using only the mind] I was put in front of a computerized light system and asked to alter the light pattern by using my mind.  I was told I scored quite high in everything."

Why does Noreen Renier falsely list these many colleges and universities when none of the institutions have ever sanctioned "scientific testing" upon her or concluded she has paranormal powers?

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

Noreen Renier's personal web site has claimed for two decades [as of 2023] that she's an “adjunct faculty member” and was given “teaching appointments” for teaching accredited courses at colleges and universities. See https://noreenrenier.com/services/academic.htm

Yet among the many colleges and universities she lists as of January 1, 2023 none agrees that she is sanctioned or ever has been sanctioned as an “adjunct faculty member”.  Those disputing her claims of being an "adjunct faculty member" on her public website include the University of Virginia, the University of Florida, the University of Delaware, Rollins College, and every other accredited institution she lists as of January 1, 2023.

And though she briefly over several nights hosted a community 'psychic workshop' using an empty classroom at the University of Virginia it had nothing to do with regular accredited courses. She shared the classroom on a week night when a Boy Scout group and a receipe swapping club were not using it.

In fact GNR investigators found an article published on March 21, 1982 by the Lynchburg, Virginia 'Daily Advance' newspaper that quotes her as saying she was fired from the University of Virginia. One former authentic University of Virginia faculty member recalled that her use of the 'free' classroom at nights was ended because she was falsely claiming to the public that she was a faculty member.  Why after claiming in 1982 that she was fired from the University of Virginia did she later begin claiming she had a teaching appointment at the university and was an "adjunct faculty member"?  The Office of Human Resources at Santa Fe Community College [in Gainesville, Florida] also stated she has never been a "adjunct faculty member" as she lists herself on her website. They too have repeatedly asked her to remove the listing from her web site since 2006. Nor has Noreen Renier ever provided even a single college or university where she's actually taught an accredited course or been sanctioned at an accredited college or university as a adjunct faculty member. Thus, every single academic institution she names on her website [as of January 1, 2023} has previously indicated her claims of being an "adjunct faculty member" are untrue or "deceptive" or both.

While on the stand before the federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Tennessee she testified [page 69 of the court transcript] to the following:

Renier: “Fraudulent claims. I would like to know what fraudulent claims I made. Questionable background credentials and current on-going investigations. No one is investigating me for fraud or anything else. . .”

Question from attorney [under cross examination]: . . .You did not make fraudulent claims involving police agencies? That is what the statement says.

Answer: Not to my knowledge, no, sir.

Question: Are you saying that you do not have questionable background credentials?

Answer: No, sir, I have a good background.

[And in a follow-up question:]

Question: Now, Ms. Renier, you have stated that you taught at the University of Virginia? . . .But you are not on the faculty, is that correct?

Answer: I am not an adjunct faculty member, no.

[GNR investigators verfied as of January 2023 Noreen Renier continues to post on her website that she was an adjunct faculty member at the University of Virginia. Yet by her own admission and testimony she was instead a "fired" woman who briefly offered unaccredited nighttime discussions in unused classrooms. Yet more than 30 years after admitting in court she was never an adjunct faculty member at the University of Virginia, and decades after the University of Virginia asked her to halt her claim of being an adjunct faculty member, her January 2023 website continues with the deception that she was a "adjunct faculty member" at the University.]

It is, noted researcher Clay Young "The boldest string of lies we've ever verified."

Incredibly it has now been more than 40 years since actress Noreen Renier claimed she was fired from the University of Virgina. Of course since she was never actually a faculty member she wasn't really fired. Rather --- though she obviously didn't wish to admit it --- she simpy had her free unused classroom taken away by the University of Virgina. Why? Noreen Renier was literally locked-out of using an empty classroom in the evenings because she wouldn't stop lying that she was an official adjunct faculty member at the University of Virginia. This is clear evidence of her extensive and on-going 35-40 year old charade across many colleges and universities. Noreen Renier could not even remember the name of her high school during court testimony --- leading one critic to speculate she never made it past the eighth grade.

Her desire for attention might be one reason she pretends she has a history teaching across numerous major universities and colleges. Its also curious that the universities and colleges she lists on her website are listed boldly under the title "Teaching Appointments".

The Boy Scouts never claimed their use of the same free evening classroom was a "Teaching Appointment" from the University nor that they were "Adjunct Faculty members". But unlike the Boy Scouts, psychic actress Noreen Renier has showcased vast deceptions now for decades --- even decades after testifying in federal courts that she ceased promoting bogus academic and scientific testing credentials.

As a further example, in a State of Florida court in 1992 she was asked while under oath the following:

Question: You’ve said you teach, as well as work. Where do you teach, ma’am?

Answer: Rollins College.

Question: That’s here in Winter Park?

Answer: Yes, sir.

Question: How long have you been so employed, ma’am?

Answer: Five years.

Question: Do you have a title there?

Answer: I just teach.

Question: Are you a member of the faculty?

Answer: No.

Question: What do you teach?

Answer: ESP.

Question: Is it a course offered by Rollins College?

Answer: It was a course that was involved in the non-credit division.

[Again, GNR investigators verified this testimony by Noreen Renier of not being a member of the faculty at Rollins College. The college confirmed Noreen Renier ceased her very brief nightly non-academic gatherings in unused public classrooms 3 decades ago. Yet as of January, 2022 she continues to falsely list herself on her website as an "adjunct faculty member” at Rollins College. The College told GNR investigators that from 1993 to 2013 they regularly requested Renier to "cease" listing herself as a faculty member at Rollins College, and finally gave up when she refused. Actress Noreen Renier knows she boldly lies on her 2023 website but must assume the general public will never learn of these vast and continously bolder deceptions.] Noreen Renier has failed to respond with corrections to her web site for decades nor provide an honest and complete corrective public response.

Among more than 500 direct police hirings she claims ---a level she noted in April 2, 2015--- and at fees shown on her web site at $1000 (times at least the 500 hirings), she should have reported $500,000 in income from law enforcement agency hirings. Yet in dozens of pages of federal court filings that Noreen Renier swore under oath were true, and in her most recent Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, she admits to zero income from law enforcement agencies and zero from any public municipal, county, city, township, state, province, federal, or international police agencies.  And in a dozen subpoena responses from her many banks providing thousands of receipts and withdrawals none show any income from law enforcement agencies.  So which is true? Five hundred or more direct police hirings exceeding $500,000.00 in income or zero income from law enforcement agencies? It's rather awkward for Noreen Renier to continue to claim both are truthful and accurate don't you think?

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

In 1990 in a Knoxville Tennessee federal court an attorney stated "Dorothy V. Lehman, a forensic handwriting expert, who has analyzed these prior exhibits and concludes: 'it is my opinion that Nancy Uzdavinis did not execute any of these handwritings. . .' Further, Ms. Lehman states 'there is no doubt that Noreen Renier did execute all of the questioned handwriting, including the signatures of Nancy Uzdavinis on the the two questioned letters."

Attorney Philip Lomonaco noted that "in conclusion, based on the fact that the Defendant was entrapped by the Plaintiff [Noreen Renier] under a fraudulent and misleading disguise, and because the Plaintiff has perjured herself at the Bankruptcy Court, Defendant John Merrell moves, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for relief from the judgment against him. A judgment may be removed for "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. In this case, the Plaintiff has met all those standards, plus perjured herself. . ."

Though this federal bankrupcty court ruled in favor of Noreen Renier, a second bankrupty court in 2006 and 2007 ruled against Noreen Renier and in favor of Mr. Merrell.

[GNC researchers ask: Why did Noreen Renier apparently attempt to entrap critics and researchers as an alias seeking their help?]

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A statement directly to Noreen Renier from GNR investigators: Critics have accused you of being wrong in your description of the crash events, its location, and where the passengers were found. Two witnesses cite you as a bold liar fabricating deceptions. And whole segments of your book chapters concerning the plane crash were withdrawn by your original publisher --- even entire chapters. And shortly thereafter you lost a federal court lawsuit through your publication of those chapters and claims. Yet you continue to be videotaped claiming the same bold deceptions and/or delusions.

On March 1, 2015 during an interview on Coast to Coast AM with Dave Schrader you repeated many of the same falsehoods you have been shown both in court and in public postings are self-created exaggerations and apparent delusions. Yet you continue. Why do you repeatedly charge fees for speaking engagements where you claim to “have found the plane” when none of the victims acted at the crash site as you describe in a truly delusional tale of your own making?

You did not before December 23, 2022 cite any corrections on this GNR finding or to any statement or finding in the current or any previous GNR web site posted material shown under the web site's Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, or Part 4. Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

For more background on Noreen Renier's claims ---including her testimony before a jury ----of finding a crashed plane and visioning survivors please read profile investigation of this case (Part 1 - 4) here on this website.

A question for Noreen Renier:

On November 7, 1988 while a guest on Hour Magazine you took out from a police "evidence bag" a bone which you held up to a studio camera. You also took out a bloody shirt and claimed that it too was police evidence provided to you on an unresolved police murder case you were working.

Yet police agencies do not allow bones, DNA evidence, nor murder evidence to be handled outside their jurisdiction by psychics much less paraded around the country before national studio cameras.

Your "bone" when years later observed carefully using sophisticated studio slow-motion high-resolution equipment was found to more closely resemble a dried turkey bone rather than a human bone. And the TV host that day --- Gary Collins, a man nominated for an Emmy Award six times and the winner in 1983 for Outstanding Talk Show Host --- was clearly skeptical of your claims.

Several investigators and critics have cited you as making your own bloody shirt and using many self-created stage props rather than authentic police evidence. GNR investigators couldn't find a single police agency that admits the 'police murder evidence' you've claimed was given to you was or is real.  Was it all created as a publicity sham to mislead the public about your claims in working with police?

Years later you were still showcasing bloody "police evidence" you claim came from multiple murders --- evidence stuffed in bags and kept in a closet in your home --- to reporters. You told reporters your murder evidence was real and yet admitted the police never asked for it back. (One such newspaper example is an interview you did with the Orlando Sentinal at http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-05-17/news/9205141059_1_noreen-renier-psychic-readings --- one among many such claims.

In 1990 during a 'Joan Rivers Show' appearance you displayed a bullet stating "these are police items, they're evidence at this point" from murder cases. Which law enforcement agency provided you with a bullet from an on-going murder case to show on international TV?  Or was this bullet your own faked murder evidence?

During your March 1, 2015 interview on Coast to Coast AM you also mentioned having "bloody glasses". From what law enforcement agency did you receive these if they actually ever existed?

On January 26, 2015 you were publicly asked to provide a photocopy of the Chain of Custody forms that legally prove you were given the "police evidence" you've displayed.  Previously you were also asked publicly to state which law enforcement agency provided you the bone and the bloody shirt. Likewise, which agencies provided you with a bloody towel, a bloody screwdriver, and the bullet. You have done nothing other than attack the investigators as "destroying my life's work" and claiming they are distributing "lies and misinformation".  But broadcast videotapes and claims on radio programs before millions of global TV viewers are proof of something clearly amiss.

Noreen Renier has not as of January 1, 2023 publicly provided or released any ' Chain of Custody' certified and completed forms from even one law enforcement agency that she claims gave heru police evidence to touch and use. Nor any 'Chain of Custody' certified and completed forms which would have allowed her to store such police evidence at her home or keep under her possession. Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

Noreen Renier stated “. . .[while] lecturing in the Blueridge Mountains. . . there’s a rapist in this town. . .  . . .they tape recorded [it] and a reporter in the back of the room also tape recorded it. . .  . . .the man was raping almost ever other week. . .  . . .so they invited me up to one of the victims homes. . .  . . .all of my clues were right.”

Her statement above begins at 11:12 minutes into the videotaped presentation she gave at the Clinton School of Public Service on February 2012. We find the statement is an outright falsehood and deception after reviewing the evidence cited by an investigator.  She claimed she was "instrumental" in visioning the rapist. Yet an attorney who questioned the Staunton Virginia police about the incident found her claims highly exaggerated.  As an example she told the audience at the Clinton School that she foresaw the rapist who drove a truck that went "round and round."  

While the man did drive a cement truck her claim of telling anyone about any truck beforehand is untrue. Everyone who was present during her questioning agrees Noreen Renier never mentioned anything about a truck before the rapist was arrested. Instead while apparently intoxicated she had difficulty speaking and just scribbled slash marks and loose ovals and circular patterns on paper.  These "scribbles" [according to a Staunton Virginia Police spokesman] she later claimed were "psychic artwork" showcasing a cement mixer going "round and round."

A principal investigator cited herr own conflicting testimony about this Staunton Virginia (U.S.A) rape case in comparison with police records.

Multiple rapes had occurred in 1979 with 5 rapes within a six block area. Her involvement was stated as being unsolicited by police.

This is supported by a comment made by Commander King of the Staunton Police Department and referenced in a newspaper article written by Julie Young and published on July 28, 1982 in Charlottesville. King states “She volunteered her services to us.”  And that her paranormal interaction "was not encouraged."

In retrospect three items in her statements were judged “coincidental” by an officer on the case, and these were provided during pre-deposition calls to an attorney in 1985. The first was that in her visions she claimed to see the rapist’s mother cooking. The mother it was later learned worked in a restaurant, but she was not a cook. The second was that she indicated that the rapist lived at the bottom of a hill across from a live performing arts theatre. Near the time of this statement she herself was performing in a local theatre and had been involved in local Charlottesville area performances. But there were no live performing arts theatres or any visiting performers in Staunton at that time. Later however it was found the rapist did live on an elevated area of the town near the Dixie movie theatre. The first reference connecting her claim to a movie theatre --- not a performing arts theatre --- seems to have come later during a radio station interview with her when after-the-fact she indicated her vision had been to a movie.

The third “coincidence” was that she claimed the rapist would be arrested before Christmas. The man was arrested on a Peeping Tom charge the week before Christmas though it was not until a follow-up on that charge that led to the rape arrest. These three coincidences came from a Staunton police officer who died 20 years ago but was directly involved in reviewing her initial answers to questions posed. The “round and round” connection stemmed solely from a pages of scribbles and circles that she drew on paper. There were no references to a truck, a delivery vehicle, or a cement truck until weeks after, and then the first such references appear to have been provided once again to the media by only Noreen Renier herself..

Some statements in those early media stories reference a Commander King of the Staunton Police. Others note a Sergeant King. These are in fact two different men, with the Sergeant reportedly at the time active at the jail and the Commander the one directly involved with criminal cases. Some quotations from Sergeant King appear to reflect second information and one reporter told Merrell he was steered to Sergeant King not Commander King. Why would a jailer with no first hand information be a better source?

Commander King stated in the July 1982 newspaper article --- three years after the case --- that Noreen Renier “kept seeing things going round and round.” Things. Plural.

A newspaper article by Ken Hurd in 1980 and published in Lynchburg states “It was Ms. Renier’s ‘visions’ of scars that helped the Staunton police find the man who recently was convicted of attacking women in Staunton. ‘I was lecturing at Blue Ridge Community College when a woman asked me for a reading on the man who had raped her sister,’ she said. Ms. Renier touched the ring of the woman and saw a ‘vision’ of a man with a scar on his leg. ‘Each piece of evidence I gave the police was 100 percent accurate,’ Ms. Renier said.”

First scars. Then scar. Plural or singular?

But far from the 100% accurate rating Noreen Renier provided to the press, her own testimony under oath and transcribed in court about the Staunton case reveals more concerns. On page 25 of her testimony in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Jackson the following exchange takes place between the defendant's attorney and Noreen Renier:

Q: Okay. Let’s turn to the state of Virginia since you live there and I assume that is where you did the greatest majority of your work, would that be accurate?

A: Yes.

Q: Let’s start with Staunton, Virginia okay? I understand that there was a series of four to five or six rapes that occurred and that you worked with the Staunton Police Department in giving them some assistance. Could you describe for me what kind of assistance you gave to the Staunton Police?

A: I gave a description of the man and maybe a scar on the body and what he did, the uniform he wore, where he lived. >

Q: Let’s move back a minute if I can interrupt you. You indicated that --- you said what he did, you mean by occupation?

A: He drove a truck, I saw him driving a truck that went around and around.

Q: And you said you saw where he lived, where did he live?

A: Near a theater, this is mostly not really from recall, it is from I remember reading in one of the press clippings that I usually loose, a theater near the hills, whatever, something like that.

Q: And did you describe what he looked like?

A: I probably did.

Q: Do you remember how you described him?

A: No.

Q: Mrs. Renier, there is an article that appeared in the Ashland Tidings on October 10th, I’m sure you’re familiar with it since it was one of the reasons why we are sitting here today. It was written by John Darling, do you recall having that interview with him?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: He says in here that, “Using her psychic gifts Mrs. Renier was instrumental in identifying a man who was later convicted of multiple rapes in Staunton, Virginia.” Do you think that sentence is accurate?

A: Well, I didn’t say anything like that, I probably gave him press clippings of the case and he ---

Q: Do you think that is accurate?

Mr. Werdell [Renier’s attorney]: Well, let her finish.
The Deponent: --- wrote the story.

Q: I will ask you my question again: Do you think it’s accurate?

A: No, I don’t think it is accurate.”

And yet three decades after almost silently admitting before a jury that it wasn't accurate that she was "instrumental in identifying a man who was later convicted of multiple rapes in Staunton, Virginia" she has repeated the same falsehoods in her books, before audiences, and before millions of TV viewers. There are many such falsehoods. As an example she never answered who “they” and “a reporter in the back of the room” that she claims made taperecordings were.  She cited these recordings in 2012 while speaking before the Clinton School audience and are videotaped doing so. Our researchers verified that no one ever uncovered such recordings, including the Staunton police officers who worked the case.

Also researchers were provided with an interview link at www.authorsden.com/visit/author.asp?id=85083
of her claims about this rape case.  She states in that interview that "Everything I'd said turned out to be right; the thing "that went round and round" was a cement truck. The man was convicted of five rapes and 16 other felonies."

However our investigators found her claim untrue since while the rapist had charges beyond his "peeping Tom" charge none were of the type she described nor did he have 16 other felonies. Just weeks after the case you were interviewed by Ken Hurd, a reporter for the Lynchburg, Virginia Daily Advance newspaper. She was quoted in that article as saying "Each piece of evidence I gave the police was 100% accurate."

Our reseachers found that just under 15% of her non-generalized claims were accurate and she performs actually significantly below just random odds. So even her claim of "100% accurate" is off by more than 85% even before her significant deception that she was "instrumental in identifying a man who was later convicted of multiple rapes" and the deception that she forecast ahead of time that the man "would drive a truck that went round and round."

And on March 1, 2015 during her interview on Coast to Coast AM she again repeated many of the same exaggerations.

A further summary and discussion noting the actual remarks by Staunton police personnel and your exaggerations is available at

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100761

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

Questions for Noreen Renier:

During interviews with journalists you've claimed an ability to block billiard balls in a game of pool using your psychic powers. And being able to cause lights to flash on and off using only your mind as the control switch. You've told news writers you can change physical matter and alter room temperatures ---again using only your mind. You've even claimed that by watching pendulums swing over maps you can locate missing persons.
Click here to see original article published in the Daily Advance Newspaper from 1-31-1984


In your book you claim to communicate back and forth with trees which have memories of historical events taking place around them. You claim you spoke back and forth at length with an oak tree who became your informant. The tree was able to tell you where a river flowed and how it witnessed a human fight --- the tree even asked you to put out your cigarette.

Why aren't you willing to show a public audience your paranormal abilities of blocking billiard balls, changing physical matter, altering room temperatures, or flashing lights on and off?

Why have you failed to vision a single lost child and immediately direct police to their location using pendulums held over maps?

Why when blindfolded and wearing noise canceling earphones are you unable to learn from any of several dozen trees you can touch where you are and what the trees "see" around them?

If not, why have you refused to be tested for any of your fantastic claims before an audience?

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response..

GNR investigators believe Noreen Renier has repeatedly lied in multiple courts. And as we have noted one federal court judge found her not credible and having misled his court. So we pose this to Noreen Renier directly:

You falsely described events which never happened in your testimony on the stand in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon for the County of Jackson. After saying you talked with friendly and unfriendly ghosts you testified that you worked with a research group that "heard noises, and a whirlpool would overflow every Wednesday at a certain time. And they had people come in and check it mechanically, and still, every Wednesday at exactly that same time the whirlpool would overflow. Telephones would ring and people would pick it up and there would be no one on the line. There'd be footsteps. What was happening was they were having a haunting. . . Then I came in and did go into a trance, contacted whoever was there, and I found out it was a woman that had died in the whirlpool on a Wednesday at 10 o'clock.  She [the ghost] gave me the name of her husband and gave the name of her attorney. And we asked her why she was haunting the spa and she said, because her attorney hadn't finished the suit or the lawsuit, and she told us several things about why she was there. Her husband got in touch with the attorney, he fixed everything up and the haunting stopped. It was all under scientific research. It wasn't foolishness."

Our researchers reviewed the transcripts of your testimony before the jury in this case. Here is some of the questioning you were given after making the statement above:

Attorney: What type of testing was done?

Renier: First the university, or Psychical Research Foundation, would make sure it was really a haunting.

Attorney: When you're talking about the university, what university are you talking about?

Renier: Psychical Research Foundation.

Attorney: That's not really a really a university is it?

Renier: No, it's not. It's a scientific study of the paranormal.

Attorney: And its not associated with any university, is it?

Renier: Well, I don't know what their claims are. No, I think they would say no, yeah.

Attorney: Now what type of testing did the Psychical Research Foundation do to determine that there was a ghost there?

Renier: All right. They went in to make sure it wasn't really these people just getting one or two false alarms.  Was this spa really overflowing? They watched it and they saw the plumber come time and time again, and there was nothing wrong. They first had to determine that this phenoemena was happening. Then they sent me in. And even though they could verify that this woman did die, they would tell me nothing. In fact, the two researchers that went with me didn't know anything about the case, just in case I was going to pick up anything telepathically. So we had two people that knew nothing abut the health spa that came in there with their tape recorders and taped everything that we did there. Can I tell you about the poltergeist too?

Attorney: Do.

Renier: A police officer called me one day and he said 'Noreen, we're having some strange things happening in a house in Leesburg.'  That might not be right, but you can check it later. I think it was Leesburg, Florida. And I said, 'What do you mean?' And he said 'Well, there's phones ringing and when people pick them up there's a voice on the other end that tells them what they have just done, what they're planning to do, what they're wearing.'  Every time this one little girl -- There were two young girls. Every time one of them went into the bathroom, all the water would start overflowing in the toilets. Things would fly around the room when no one was touching them.  Police people, the press, everyone had seen this -- a lot of phenomena.  So I called the PRF up and I said, 'Is this a haunting?' They said 'No, it sounds like a poltergeist.' And I never really understood what a poltergeist was, and they explained to me a little bit about poltergeists.  Usually a small child is involved, and she's either going through a change of life physically, like maybe getting into her menstrual period or maybe there's been a strong death so that maybe mentally and emotionally she's out of kilter, and she wouldn't know it, but her energy, by being out of kilter, is creatng all this. So it really --- It was written up quite a bit.  A scientiic paper was written on it by the PRF.  It's called the Leesburg poltergeist case and the PRF--Johnny Kryger wrote the article. And they were called in -- After I was there, they were called in to do it scientifically.  I have other stories if you want ---

Attorney: I have no further questions, your Honor."

In early 2015 six U.S.A. based GNR investigators found absolutely nothing truthful in reviewing your testimony.  Such a case as you describe never happened in Leesburg, Florida or Leesburg, Georgia, or Leesburg, Virgina.  In fact there's no record of any poltergeist case even vaguely resembling your claimed events stated under oath and before the Oregon jury. And nothing like what you described across the United States or Canada. The closest (and its actually a fully descredited story) haunting without a whirlpool, and without any woman who died, and with no unfinished business by an attorney, happened in Columbus, Ohio (U.S.A.) in 1984. The central young woman in that case was Tina Resch, who falsely claimed that phones were flying through the air on their own.  William Roll of the discredited Psychical Research Center was there, but there is no record of you ever being there and we assume you know the difference between Leesburg Florida and Columbus Ohio --- a distance of 1565 kliometers (about 973 miles) as you claim you were there. All six GNR researchers assigned to this claim conclude you lied before the jury and fabricated the story mixing portions of fiction and delusionary tales of your own.

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or had an attorney make corrections to her in court testimony or to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence nor made any corrective public response.And the "whirlpool" which overflowed was, if Renier was citing the faked events in Columbus Ohio, simply the "whirlpool" in a bathroom toilet which young Tina Resch caused to overflow to back her phony story of a poitergeist in her home. Noreen Renier took a completely fabricated and discredited story and compounded it with a fantasy where she too was present. Then she claimed that she had resolved the actual bogus ghost haunting by communicating with the dead and resolving the over-flowing toilet.

After Noreen Renier argued that a 2005 Washington state lawsuit against her should be moved to a U.S. District court, the very court she wanted to hear her case ruled against her in 2006 and followed with a second ruling against her in 2007. After those losses additional federal court judgments against her followed through 2012, and a string of rulings against her have continued in Florida courts since.

From 2005 to 2012 Noreen Renier claimed that for health reasons she was unable to make even a single 5-to-6-hour flight to a Washington state court from her Virginia or Orlando residences. She stressed her frail physical health and elderly age. With these concerns multiple courts accepted her word and allowed her to respond from local federal courts in the eastern United States. This was somewhat odd as she was the defendant in lawsuits and the Plaintiff (John Merrell, living in Washington state), had followed all of the legal filing and location procedures she herself had signed during an active settlement agreement. Merrell fully expected Noreen Renier to be on site (in Washington state) as she had earlier legally agreed to respond any the legal complaints he filed. Part of his initial lawsuit was that she had breached that settlement agreement, to which the Seattle federal court later agreed and ruled against Renier.

Merrell did however reluctantly accept her medical requested move to her home state though Noreen Renier never followed up or delivered any medical assessment to back her claim. Unknown to those courts or Merrell was that within just weeks --- as noted in web postings and on the personal website of Noreen Renier --- she was a very eager traveler. Indeed, upon turning 76 years old (on January 16, 2013) she even expanded her extensive U.S. book signings to jet-set to far more distant locations.

Appearing in late 2020 just past the the 7 year follow-up of any federal court judgments before 2013, she admitted on her website (and as it appears currently in 2022) that she was actually an extensive traveler. Her website states “Noreen Renier, a graceful lady, at 76, was adventurous enough to take 4 flights from Orlando, Florida to Beira, Mozambique, and further two flights to Moma, on the coast of Mozambique.” Even coupled with some private plane travel, a single one-way trip from Orlando to Bieira using a minimum of three stops would take approximately 22 hours plus airport stop-overs, for a total of 26-31 hours per one-way travel. One would need to add a minimum of another 90 minutes per each of the two flights to Moma from Bieira assuming a private jet was used. Total travel times of the four roundtrips for the itinerary described on her own website by John Da Cruz? GNR calculates such travels would well exceed 100 hours --- or over 30,000 air miles further than what she indicated to judges she could not physically handle.

Perhaps warm winds along the beautiful shores of the Indian Ocean together with royal accommodations and luxury treatments made the difference. Did Noreen Renier’s health to Mozambique skyrocket over the unpleasantness of enduring a 6-hour 1st class jet trip to a court room in Seattle? This is likely given an earlier court ruling which allowed the lawsuit against her to continue into a higher court.

It’s unknown whether any of the U.S. federal judges who took note of her “extremely frail” travel abilities ever learned of her actual flights to multiple ocean fronts. Little does it matter however as all six federal court judges ruled against Noreen Renier from 2006 through 2012. It is interesting that her Mozambique travels occurred shortly after United States federal bankruptcy Judge William E. Anderson in 2012 wrote a statement in his judgment against Renier. Today his statement seems to be further compounded by Renier’s 2022 website travel admissions. In his ruling against Noreen Renier, Judge Anderson noted “The overwhelming problem with Renier’s case is that the court did not find her … to be a credible witness … ...she misled the court.”

That clearly did not include knowledge of her jet setting over 10 times longer (112 hours of international travel versus just 11 hours roundtrip to Seattle) than her “extremely frail” health would have endured to the Seattle courtroom. Readers should remember Noreen Renier before claiming psychic powers was a long-time professional stage actor and night club entertainer. Noreen Renier apparently has the skills to perform and mislead. One investigator noted that "Renier loves to showcase her twisted schemes as a slap in the face to those she fools and further validate her skills as an actress."

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

Mrs. Renier: During previous court testimony when questioned if you could cure cancer using your “psychic energy vibration” process you did not rule it out, saying that you had already performed medical healing's.  In your book A Mind For Murder (page 114,  the 2008 edition) you wrote about healing a man decades ago. The man suffered sharp pains in his lower abdomen. “I explained to him that the energy that emanated from me and my hands could affect him and his body . . . . . . [I took] several deep breaths, and placed my hands above his head until I felt a connection with his energy. Then I let my hands hover a few inches away from his abdomen, where I had felt the pain in myself. As I felt the energy flowing between us, I assured him he would be just fine. When I looked up, he thanked me.”

You also has described “heat as the energy flowed from me” when a friend’s cut finger “was soon replaced by tingling. By the time I left, her finger was fine. We both were a bit stunned by my success.”

In testimony and while under oath you were questioned about the following statement you gave to a reporter which you confirmed was accurate: "If you can be a good psychic you can heal, you change your own rate of vibration and that opens the door to healing." The following exchange took place between the defendants attorney and yourself in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, for the County of Jackson:

Attorney: Could you explain to me a little bit, first of all what types of things you can heal with this type of process?

Renier: I try anything with a person that is in pain, I want to help them, I don't recall it healing when I'm doing it, I just tell them I would like to make them feel better and I will try. I try anything.

Attorney: Does healing in this sense mean a cure or curing?

Renier: To me it means trying to help them.

Attorney: Successfully?

Renier: I have no idea, I just try, then they leave, I don't know.

Attorney: But in some cases it is successful?

Renier: I remember once in our classroom we did some healing on a young girl and it was successful, yes.

Attorney: So you can only think of one instance when your psychic ability has healed someone?

Renier: I don't heal per se, I feel I can but my clients don't know most of the time I'm doing it.

Attorney: Okay, but you said that this was a reflection, an accurate reflection of what you said?

Renier: Yes.

Attorney: You can heal?

Renier: Yes.

Attorney: Are we talking about healing the common cold or are we talking about curing someone's cancer, what are we talking about?

Renier: However a person hurts, if they have a cold I would try to heal that, I could.

Attorney: And you feel that you can cure cancer with your vibration process?

Renier: I feel I can help people, sometimes more successful than other times.

Attorney: Have you cured someone of cancer?

Renier: Not that I am aware of.

Attorney: Have you successfully cured someone of the common cold?

Renier: Not that I'm aware of.

Attorney: What have you successfully cured someone of?

Renier: A cyst, I made a cyst disappear.  A girl was going to have an operation and she had a cyst and it disappeared, and she didn't have to have the operation.

Attorney: How do you know if was your changing her rate of vibration that caused the cyst to go?

Renier: I don't know.

Attorney: So you just know that you tried to help her and it turned out she didn't have to have an operation?

Renier: Yes.

Attorney: Can you think of any other circumstances under which your healing has been successful?

Renier: My father had a knee injury from years and years and he was in a lot of pain and when I became a psychic he visited me and he has never had a problem with his knee again.

Attorney: Any other cases where you can think of where you healed someone?

Renier: None off hand.

Attorney: How many times have you tried to heal someone?

Renier: I try to help people whenever they hurt.

Attorney: Give me an idea of how many times that would be, a few hundred?

Renier: Perhaps, yes.

Attorney: And out of those few hundred cases you can only think of two cases where to your knowledge you were helpful?

Renier: These people I don't see everyday, I don't see them again.

Attorney: Mrs. Renier, is healing --- could you describe how it is you go about changing someone's vibration, what do you mean by that?

Renier: I think I could -- I mean by that sort of similar to a prayer, laying on hand, a lot of religious groups do healing on churches, I think prayer is a very strong way of healing. Changing vibration is --- when something is wrong that is one of the sicknesses, the illnesses, it means that something is wrong and something happened to cause this growth or pain or whatever, and changing it to make it normal and balanced is when people usually get better or feel better.

Attorney: When you talk about changing someone's rate of vibration are you talking about a physical phenomena or are you talking about a metaphysical phenomena?

Renier: It is my expression, I tell myself these things, because I have to have some faith in what I do, and that is my explanation to me.  If you or anyone else believes it doesn't matter, I think that is the way it works, I really don't understand it 100 percent.

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

In testimony in a State of Florida court Noreen Renier testified that TV stations who had her on the air were her employers. She stated while under oath the following when asked about her employment:

Renier: My employers were the television stations when they had me on the air.

Attorney: You were employed by –

Renier: They didn’t pay me, but the promotion and the publicity I got was worth a lot of money, so I figured that was payment.

Attorney: So when you use the term “employer” you’re referring to anybody who provides free publicity to you? [And with a follow-up question]

Attorney: Toni Guinyard has no relationship to anybody you identified as an employer?

Renier: Oh, yes. I already told you that. When I’m on TV and radio, I considered them my employers. You forget.

[In the court transcript from pages 85-92 Mrs. Renier also fails to remember the reasons or even the basis behind many of her court filed complaints. Asked about when she worked on a claimed Virginia case she stalled and said “I’m thinking. My process is different than your’s. I don’t remember.” And when asked who she refers to as a client, her testimony was:

Renier: Police people, police departments that I teach at; those are my clients. I’m self-employed. They’re my clients.

Attorney: Well, you’ve used the term ‘employers’ and ‘clients’, two separate words. Do they mean something different to you?

Renier: They mean the same thing to me. People that hired me.

[GNR investigator: Clearly she testified anyone who brings her publicity is someone who is a employer. So dozens or more law enforcement agencies in her mind are presumably also her employers. This further compounds her statements that “more than hundreds” of law enforcement agencies have hired her. All of our researchers found she is constantly exaggerating and adding confusion as she utilizes these word games.]

Noreen Renier did not before December 23, 2022 cite any corrections on this GNR finding. And since then she has offered nothing new as a corrective public response.

Noreen Renier claimed that she sealed an envelope with the outcomes and final scores and sent this to ESPN long before the games were played. She told one TV show host that she picked 12 out of 14 games perfectly with the exact matching scores, including a couple of major upsets. On live television before millions of viewers she indicated her claim of picking 12 out of 14 games was true.  But when researchers contacted ESPN no one had any idea who she was and no ESPN executive had ever heard of such a claim.  No one at ESPN had any record that she had ever sent to them such a sealed envelope and prediction.  Noreen Renier has declined repeatedly to answer questions about this claim. We conclude it was simply a bold lie she repeated before millions of TV viewers. Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response..

In a public statement issued in her own published media pack titled "Workshop ESP: An Awarenss" she states "an optional trance is held in the evening with workshop members encouraged to make contact with the deceased relatives, friends, or famous people, and questions may be posed to 'Sing' and 'Robert', Noreen's two main spiritual entities, who have something to say about everything!"  But a significant number of people who sent her checks told investigators they thought she was story-telling about the people they know who died. In 2011, thirty years after she first described her ghost entity as "a male Oriental named Sing" a critic made a public speculation. He surmized that her entity 'Sing' might be a fantasy or delusion that she based on a popular character from the number one TV show during several years in the 1960's. A show that lasted 14 years until 1973 --- NBC-TV's Bonanza. On the series the Cartwright's family cook was named Hop Sing and played by actor Victor Sen Yung. In a more recent December 2014 interview in Bellspirit magazine her male entity "Sing" is now "Singh my guide, a little Asian lady."  As her testimony in court has her entity as Sing in 1986, and her own promotional materials list "Sing" why did a male ghost she claims helps make contact among billions of the dead switch from male to female? Or was she caught attempting to confuse her previous lies?

Questions for Noreen Renier:

In fact during what apparently was your most extensive testing under carefully controlled conditions, your psychic and psychometry abilities were not found as "quite high", but just the opposite.

According to Dr. Harry Kloor who in 1985 was an instructor at the Southern Oregon State campus in Ashland, Noreen Renier "showed up on campus and proclaimed she was 'gifted.'"

In 1994 at 31, Dr. Kloor became according to People magazine the first American to earn a remarkable simultaneous double Ph.D —in physics and chemistry—at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.

While he was still at Southern Oregon State College in addition to earning two BS degrees, he also earned two black belts in kung fu and kick boxing.

This remarkable man convinced you to be tested in May 1985 by himself and others after he helped you first review with an outline the testing procedures.

This testing on you at the Southern Oregon State College campus was conducted, reviewed, documented, and witnessed by more than two dozen actual on-site researchers and participants. That is far different that your claims elsewhere which have no documentation at all other than your personal claims and recollections.

During one test segment at Southern Oregon State you were offered seven blood samples.

Each of seven blood slides were prepared according to Dr. Kloor “by first being handled by the subject and then a blood smear was carefully taken and the numbered plate placed in a box."

According to Dr. Kloor you agreed this careful handling of the blood samples and packaging by the actual blood donor was proper.

Also previous to beginning the testing you agreed you understood what the procedures were and that they were fair. You then agreed to attempt to properly match each blood sample to each of the six volunteers who had donated samples of their blood.

In this particular test there was also a single "control blood sample" among the seven to help authenticate your claimed psychometry abilities. This "control" sample was the only blood sample from among the seven that you should have had left on the table as you matched those of the six blood volunteers before you.

Instead you picked up the box containing the controlled blood sample first and according to Dr. Kloor "in a somewhat theatrical manner she described the sex, age range, personal traits, etc. of the subject."

You were clearly disappointed when no blood volunteer in the room sensed a match and cried Bingo!

Unfortunately for you there was no shout by anyone because your chosen sample did not match blood taken from any of six volunteers present.

Even so, according to Dr. Kloor once you finished your detailed description about the student that you believed matched the blood you "demanded to know how well she had done."

Dr. Greg Fowler, now an Associate Clinical Professor of Public Health, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon and Executive Director of Geneforum.org was at Southern Oregon State College in 1985 and participated with the testing.

When it became quite clear that you would not continue, Dr. Fowler revealed the identity of the blood sample to be that of a rat!

According to Dr. Kloor, "To say the least she was not very pleased.”

Even after additional testing was conducted on you --- including readings off objects previously selected from students --- it was found that your actual tested performance was amazingly worse than random chance!

And years later when your performance at this event was revealed you claimed the story was in error and your testing had been done at the University of Oregon rather than the far smaller campus of Southern Oregon State College just seven miles from where you lived. But the correct campus was indeed the Southern Oregon State College and officials at the University of Oregon campus --- located some 170 miles north --- denied any involvement ever with you in any lab or research setting.

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

Here’s an exchange when Noreen Renier took the stand in the Jackson County Circuit Court in Oregon:

Question: Ms. Renier, you indicated that you don’t say that you solve cases. Is that true?

Answer: It’s true.

Question: Didn’t you say that you solved the double homicide in Michigan?

Answer: We’ll have to listen ---

Question: Do you recall saying that?

Answer: No. [GNR investigator note: Just hours before in the same court the court transcript shows Noreen Renier testifying that “I solved a double murder in Michigan.” From page 57 of the court transcript.]

Question: Do you recall saying that you were instrumental in solving a Virginia case?

Answer: (Head indication by the witness as a yes)

Question: Do you remember saying on the stand, “I was instrumental in finding a lost plane in Virginia”?

Answer: Yes.

Question: What does it mean to you when you say ‘I was instrumental in doing something’?

Answer: It means that whoever was working on a case came to a dead end. They had no more clues, no more information. All their efforts brought no conclusion to the crime or the missing plane. When I came in, maybe my clues gave them a new direction, gave them a new suspect to chase; whatever it was, it was instrumental in helping them.

Question: So in essence, you solved the crimes?

Answer: No, the police do, because if they don’t follow my leads or if my leads aren’t that clear --- No, I can’t say I solve crimes.

Question: But you have indicated upon occasion that you’re instrumental in solving them?

Answer: Instrumental in --- I don’t even feel comfortable with you saying that. I’m not saying I haven’t maybe said it, but I don’t feel good about that though.

[GNC researchers found that while she testified she didn't feel good about saying she solved a case, she regularly uses the phrase. Researchers in Canada found over thirty references from 2005-2018 of Noreen Renier claiming she was “instrumental in solving” a crime or missing person case. Yet in none of those cases did the law enforcement agency agree that she had solved, or been instrumental in solving the case. Several indicated they didn’t even recognize her name. As recently as early 2019 Mrs. Renier was posting that she had been “instrumental in solving” a missing person case. In this alleged case she failed to provide the case name or location, the name of any law enforcement agency involved, the date of the case, or any other information that would allow a check on her claim. Just that she was “instrumental in solving” the case.]

According to Woody Greenburg a reporter with the Daily Progress newspaper (Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.), after interviewing Noreen Renier he published an article. He wrote that “the more she waved her hand, the colder it got. The audience asked her to stop! [And] when she stopped the camera and lights went out briefly. She doesn’t know why, but it excites her.”

[In researching this claim over several weeks GNC researchers in 2015 located Mr. Robert Wilson. He is a retired teacher and the audio visual coordinator at the school of Miami area event. Mr. Wilson states for the record that “It wasn’t really a performance as she was just one of three speakers for our monthly open forum. I remember she bombed. Most of the 120 or so people attending, including myself, were there to see the other two guests. You could tell she was poorly educated. If she had been a student I would have given her a “D” as she wasn’t prepared. The room used was always a bit chilly even during classroom hours but that night we had the custodian turn up the heat even before she arrived. The temperature had nothing to do with anything she did and it certainly never got cooler while she was speaking, it was getting warmer. I remember that because the next guests had 12 slide projectors cued up as she was stepping down. I do recall she stayed behind the podium and seemed to get a angry that nobody was excited about meeting a psychic. In the newspaper story she claims the event was videotaped but it wasn’t. This was we before hand-held video camcorders and the school only had an old AMPEX unit that wasn’t used. I managed the AV department and certainly would have noticed anyone with a portable video unit as those units were brand new at the time and very unique. The reason I remember the event so well is because the next two guests were close friends. They gave a 70 minute multi-projection slide show matched with a synchronized audio recording. They’d spent weeks getting it ready. I would have remembered any loss of power that night so she’s fibbing about that too. And we certainly didn’t charge her or anyone else $20 to attend as she claims. I actually remember she didn’t get much applause and didn’t stay around and looked peeved. I think our other guests were happy to see her disappear and they got a standing ovation.” Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. She has provided no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public response.

This testimony by Noreen Renier was before the Honorable Richard Stair, Jr., a federal judge while she was on the stand. [From page 88 of the court transcript]:

Ms. Renier: There’s one I can’t talk about. I looked for a spy. They had to find a spy. It was a government official. They won’t let me talk about that one.

[GNR note: In 2010 Noreen Renier provided the following text for a French paranormal meeting examining her latest book: “The London office of a secret agency called me to help find some double-agents. They put wires around my head that looked like Christmas tree tinsel. I could feel them tingling. Then they showed me pictures of places I didn’t recognize. But when I saw some I got excited and the tinsel wires turned blue. They said my sensing powers were the greatest they had ever seen. I helped catch a spy ring that was hiding in the United States. One of them was a beautiful Russian agent. But I can’t tell you anything more.”

Our investigators conclude Noreen Renier markets many claims mixing rumors, news, and delusions to create attention around herself. There is nothing to connect her or her claims to such events and there is nothing released in public communications from the Government Communications Headquarters to show her involvement with any of the United Kingdom’s counter-intelligence and security agencies including the Security Service (MI5) or the SIS (MI6).

Noreen Renier has never cited directly or from an attorney corrections to this GNR finding. Nor has she provided any no detailed support evidence or made any corrective public responses.