She languished in jail for four days and from how the program depicted it, was simply arrested because she "knew too much". Whether you believe she had psychic ability is something else, but I would have been very ticked off if I was arrested under those circumstances, and probably would have punched the officer or spit in his face. Guessing you would get charged for assault though :/

Anyways, this segment always bothered me because of that part. And in that reenactment, she simply stares at the officer and does nothing, then proceeds to walk down the hallway. Could she have sued the policed department for being falsely imprisoned?

This is probably one of the only psychic segments that I found interesting.the fact that they had no evidence other than her knowing too much is an insane reason to throw her in jail

This is probably one of the only psychic segments that I found interesting.the fact that they had no evidence other than her knowing too much is an insane reason to throw her in jail

Yeah well we don't have rights in the USA. Just privileges. Might equals right. As long as you have more power and resources, things are going to go your way.

She has nobody to blame but herself, all she had to do was go to a payphone & tell them she had heard X bragging about the murder round town & where he had dumped the body. Instead she made up some rubbish about visions etc-when in fact it was one of her kids who found the body & not her anyway.

Look at it from the cops point of view-they have somebody telling them they have other worldly visions of a body that has been dumped in a remote place, of course they are going to suspect either she did it or was involved. Then they hooked her up to a polygraph & she failed. Back in those days people put a lot of stock in that junk science-many still do today.

She has nobody to blame but herself, all she had to do was go to a payphone & tell them she had heard X bragging about the murder round town & where he had dumped the body. Instead she made up some rubbish about visions etc-when in fact it was one of her kids who found the body & not her anyway.

Look at it from the cops point of view-they have somebody telling them they have other worldly visions of a body that has been dumped in a remote place, of course they are going to suspect either she did it or was involved. Then they hooked her up to a polygraph & she failed. Back in those days people put a lot of stock in that junk science-many still do today.
Actually she passed both polygraph tests, five hours after she was already held for questioning. They still wanted to put her in jail anyways. This was what was said in the UM segment at least. I did read elsewhere she failed. So it's a he said/she said thing I guess. Regardless if she was a crackpot, she hadn't committed a crime so I don't get the "she has no one to blame but herself". I guess her mistake was trusting the law too much.

Whoops, looks like she already did sue the police and won a case in '87.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-03-27/local/me-381_1_murder-victim

Actually she passed both polygraph tests, five hours after she was already held for questioning. They still wanted to put her in jail anyways. This was what was said in the UM segment at least. I did read elsewhere she failed. So it's a he said/she said thing I guess. Regardless if she was a crackpot, she hadn't committed a crime so I don't get the "she has no one to blame but herself". I guess her mistake was trusting the law too much.

I tend to believe the other reports over UM-She was later questioned about her precise knowledge and was given a lie detector test, which she failed. According to a detective’s sworn testimony, “the polygraphist indicated that she was being deceptive,” even “trying to control her breathing” (Guarino 1987, 5, 10). She was jailed for four days on suspicion of having some connection with the crime or criminals.

No, her mistake was not just phoning in the tip anonymously so they could search the area. That the jury awarded her damages of 26k only to cover lost earnings & legal fess, rather than the ludicrous 750k she was seeking speaks volumes. One might even suggest she possibly orchestrated this entire thing knowing that she would get thrown in the slammer & then to sue for wrongful arrest/incarceration. Seriously who goes to the police to tell them they had a vision of a murder victim, then leave the station & head there themselves?

I tend to believe the other reports over UM-She was later questioned about her precise knowledge and was given a lie detector test, which she failed. According to a detective’s sworn testimony, “the polygraphist indicated that she was being deceptive,” even “trying to control her breathing” (Guarino 1987, 5, 10). She was jailed for four days on suspicion of having some connection with the crime or criminals.

No, her mistake was not just phoning in the tip anonymously so they could search the area. That the jury awarded her damages of 26k only to cover lost earnings & legal fess, rather than the ludicrous 750k she was seeking speaks volumes. One might even suggest she possibly orchestrated this entire thing knowing that she would get thrown in the slammer & then to sue for wrongful arrest/incarceration. Seriously who goes to the police to tell them they had a vision of a murder victim, then leave the station & head there themselves?
Well yeah, like I said it depends who you believe. For me it's one of those things where unless I was there I can't be certain. The detective I'm guessing was one of the ones that put her up to the test. He could be lying too.

Like I said though, everything that happened still wasn't grounds to be put in jail. Whether she decided to phone in a tip or go to the police, tell them she had a vision, or go to the area herself to be sure her intuition was correct or not. At the end of the day the police still screwed up. Etta was jailed without committing a crime. Also, I think her potentially concocting a scheme around the discovery of a dead body, only to be jailed indefinitely (not sure how she would have known she'd be thrown in jail without committing a crime), and then try and sue later on several years later is just as plausible to me as having a vision in the first place. Especially since she went on TV years later to talk about the entire thing for no gain really. I mean we'll never know for sure, and I guess it doesn't matter because she did end up winning a court case. Personally, even if I did have a vision I would have sued for as much as my attorney thought I could. I would have been ticked off if I did have a vision and was jailed for four days without committing a crime.

I don't see her planning that either. I don't really think she should have been locked up for four days-overnight would have given them time to see she wasn't involved or knew the people who did it intimately. But in no way was that a wrongful arrest/illegal detention-if they had let her go & it turned out she was involved &she skipped town then there would have been uproar.