James Randi's Alleged Sex Tape

 
Please note: This article contains graphic language. All accusations are alleged.

 

-   "The scientist's lawyers sought to discredit Mr. Randi by playing taped conversations of teen-age boys who called the magician's home allegedly for sex."


- James Randi, a magician known as "The Amazing Randi," had been involved in a lawsuit in which his opponent introduced a tape of sexually explicit telephone conversations Randi had with teenage boys. (Randi has claimed at various times, she said, that the tape was a hoax and that the police asked him to make it.)

 

-Prometheus Books, publishers of Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults, is run by Paul Kurtz, Professor emeritus of Philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo. He is chairman of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal....Vern  Bullough is also listed as a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine in which Dr Ralph Underwager, co-founder of the FMSF in the US said he thought having sex with children could be seen as part of God's will....Prometheus also publishes the books of James Randi, an ex-CSICOP Member and present FMSF Advisory Board member . Other FMSF Board Members, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Elizabeth Loftus, Loren Pancratz, Thomas Sebeok are also CSICOP board members.

- Why does the tape contain SEVEN calls from SEVEN
  different teenage boys?

- why do you, James Randi, then proceed to give the boy an open invitation to your home, saying, and I quote: "First of all, come here any time you want. I am always available. Will you let me   take pictures of you?"

 

Columbia Journalism Review
    
July/August 1997

U-Turn on Memory Lane

by Mike Stanton


Stanton heads the investigative team at The Providence Journal-Bulletin, where he shared a 1994 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. He wrote a 1995 series on Professor Ross E. Cheit of Brown University, whose recovered memory of childhood abuse drew national attention. Stanton studied recovered memory last year on a John S. Knight Fellowship at Stanford University.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071216011151/http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/97/4/memory.asp

....Landsberg also challenged the credentials of other foundation advisers. She noted that one founding adviser, Ralph Underwager, was forced to resign from the foundation's board after he and his wife, Hollida Wakefield, who remains an adviser, gave an interview to a Dutch pedophilia magazine in which he was quoted as describing pedophilia as "an acceptable expression of God's will for love." Landsberg also wrote that another adviser, James Randi, a magician known as "The Amazing Randi," had been involved in a lawsuit in which his opponent introduced a tape of sexually explicit telephone conversations Randi had with teenage boys. (Randi has claimed at various times, she said, that the tape was a hoax and that the police asked him to make it.)

"Why haven't reporters investigated the False Memory Syndrome Foundation?" she asks. "It's legitimate to examine their backgrounds -- here are people who really do have powerful motivation to deny the truth."


Byrd v Randi (Civil Action No. MJG-89-636 in the United States District for the Court for the District of Maryland.




False Memory Syndrome: A False Construct

Juliette Cutler Page


https://web.archive.org/web/20090519040352/http://www.heart7.net/fms-false-construct.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20070211152419/http://www.feminista.com/archives/v1n9/false-memory.html

 
Another FMSF Advisory Board member, James Randi, was involved in a scandal in which (according to court records):

    "The scientist's lawyers sought to discredit Mr. Randi by playing taped conversations of teen-age boys who called the magician's home allegedly for sex."

    [ Byrd v Randi (Civil Action No. MJG-89-636 in the United States District for the Court for the District of Maryland.] Transcripts of the tape are also part of the court record in Geller v Randi, (Civil Action No 91-1014-SSH in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The transcripts are contained in Exhibit 40 to Exhibit U].

....Appendix E PROMETHEUS BOOKS

Prometheus Books, publishers of Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults, is run by Paul Kurtz, Professor emeritus of Philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo. He is chairman of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) which runs the Skeptical Inquirer. Prometheus publishes an extensive Human Sexuality Books section under the editorship of Vern Bullough (AAA10/March 1996), Dean of Natural and Social Science at State University, New York, who is a CSICOP Board member.

Vern Bullough is also listed as a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine in which Dr Ralph Underwager, co-founder of the FMSF in the US said he thought having sex with children could be seen as part of God's will; that paedophiles should make their loving image clearer to the outside world; and that the USA was virulently anti-sexuality at present. His wife, Hollida Wakefield, who also took part in the interview said she thought it would be "nice" if someone could do a longitudinal study of 100 twelve year old boys in loving relationships with paedophiles. More recently on the Internet, Dr Underwager posted further thoughts in which he emphasised his belief that the "criminalization of sex" was destroying the social compact.

Prometheus also publishes the books of James Randi, an ex-CSICOP Member and present FMSF Advisory Board member . Other FMSF Board Members, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Elizabeth Loftus, Loren Pancratz, Thomas Sebeok are also CSICOP board members.[ Accuracy About Abuse Newsletter April 1996]




COPY OF LETTER SENT TO JAMES RANDI - 9/26/1999

https://web.archive.org/web/19991128035654/http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/jrl1.htm

On May 3 1999, you, James Randi, issued a statement regarding
a CD that is being circulated. This CD is a copy of the Police tape
that hundreds of people now possess.

In this statement, you, James Randi, said:

The tape cassette which formed part of the blackmail package,
rather than being the product of a "tap" on my phone, as the
blackmail package claimed, was a copy of a tape that I was
specifically asked to make back in 1968, by the police chief
-- Zerr -- of Rumson, New Jersey, where I lived at that time.
 
That request was because of obscene phone calls I'd been
receiving at home, at all hours of the day and night. The object
of my conversations on that tape had been to keep the callers
on the line and thereby trace and identify the persons respons-
-ible. Zerr informed me that though a recording could probably
not be admitted into evidence, it would be a powerful tool to
possess. (At that time, to establish a trace, it was necessary
to keep a caller on the line a minimum of four minutes.)

That investigation resulted in a minor in a neighboring town
being identified and charged with the crime. At that time,
the minor's lawyer was informed by the local police that I
possessed a recording of the phone calls.

                          >>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<

If the above is true, the following questions should be easily
answered by you, James Randi.

1) Why does the tape contain SEVEN calls from SEVEN
  different teenage boys?

2) If any of these boys are 'blackmailing' you, why does
  EVERY boy call you "Donald?" Correct me if I'm wrong,
  but is it not usually the blackmailer who uses a pseudonym?

3) If any of these boys are 'blackmailing' you, James Randi,
   then why is there not one threatening sentence uttered at
   any time?

4) If the Police were running a tap on your phone, Randi,
  and with your consent,  to trace incoming calls, as you
  state, why do you call a boy back when he runs out of
  change? You say, and I quote: "What number are you
  at, I'll call you back?"

5) Having called the boy back, why do you, James Randi,
  then proceed to give the boy an open invitation to your
  home, saying, and I quote: "First of all, come here any
  time you want. I am always available. Will you let me
  take pictures of you?"

6) Finally, I leave you with a few complete quotes by you,
  James Randi - verbatim - from the tape, and I ask you if
  this is what one would expect a blackmail victim to put to
  his blackmailer (all seven of them!):

"Do you blow? How many inches have you got?" (2)

"What if I drive you around in the car, can you do a blow
 job on me?" (3)

"If I drive around in the car will you do a blow job on me? (3)

"Oh, I've got nine and a half inches. You might like to take
 care of it." (6)

"So, do you usually jerk off, or what do you do?" (8)

"Alright? Because when you see these pictures you are
 getting really hot....you ever seen pictures like that?" (8)

"It shows Japanese guys, you know, working on one another,
 and everything. Some of them crowds of people, four or five
 people all together. So, how many inches have you got?" (8)

"What I like to do? I like to get blown." (12)

"Fuck and suck, play together." (23)

"Well, we go in the bedroom. We all get in the bed and we
l lay on top of one another." (23)


https://web.archive.org/web/19991128051533/http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/jrl2.htm


REPLY FROM JAMES RANDI VIA J. LIPPARD


Jim:  in answer...

>1) Why does the tape contain SEVEN calls from SEVEN
  different teenage boys?

ANSWER:  Because that was the number of calls I was able to record.  And, I've no way of knowing whether these were teen-age boys.  They were  responding to the "ads" scribbled on toilet walls by John Hitchcock, the  local boy who was subsequently arrested, tried, and convicted for this harassment, in Rumson, N.J.

2) If any of these boys are 'blackmailing' you, why does
  EVERY boy call you "Donald?" Correct me if I'm wrong,
  but is it not usually the blackmailer who uses a pseudonym?

That, I was told, was the name written in the "ads."  These persons were  not "blackmailers" in any sense, nor did I ever claim that they were.

3) If any of these boys are 'blackmailing' you, James Randi,
   then why is there not one threatening sentence uttered at
   any time?

None of them were blackmailing me, nor have I ever implied or stated this. It was the persons who eventually obtained the tape-recording I made of the phone calls, who attempted to blackmail me, threatening to reveal this material if I did not cease my pursuit of the "psychics."

4) If the Police were running a tap on your phone, Randi,
  and with your consent,  to trace incoming calls, as you
  state, why do you call a boy back when he runs out of
  change? You say, and I quote: "What number are you
  at, I'll call you back?"

The police never ran a tap on my phone, with or without my consent, nor did I ever claim that they were.  I myself, at the suggestion of Chief Zerr of the Rumson police, placed a recorder on my phone.  It paid off, handsomely, and resulted in identifying the culprit.

5) Having called the boy back, why do you, James Randi,
  then proceed to give the boy an open invitation to your
  home, saying, and I quote: "First of all, come here any
  time you want. I am always available. Will you let me
  take pictures of you?"

I never called anyone, never being able to get a number to call, as the
police hoped I would -- though we did get a trace in one case, immediately after which an arrest was made.  I had been instructed by Mrs. Dunne, at the phone company, to keep the callers on the line as long as I could, but at minimum 4 minutes -- the time required to effect a trace.

6) Finally, I leave you with a few complete quotes by you,
  James Randi - verbatim - from the tape, and I ask you if
  this is what one would expect a blackmail victim to put to
  his blackmailer (all seven of them!):

(snip)  Yes, these were comments I made to keep them on the line.  I was told to "talk dirty," because that's what they wanted to hear.  And it worked.  We got an identification, and an arrest and conviction.  And, I'm told that Chief Zerr, upon his death, was succeeded by his son, whose name I do not know, and he just may be the present chief in Rumson.  I'm sure he can be located.

The sender in this case has no understanding of the situation, has the
facts screwed up, and just doesn't know how to read the statement I issued.
 

       
                         James Randi


https://web.archive.org/web/19991128070254/http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/jrl3.htm

Sent: 2October 1999

Postings of James Randi's reply to the Splice Letter have
appeared on some newsgroups (alt.bible.prophesies being
one!). A full copy of that response has been added to the
end of this message for anyone who hasn't seen it.

Before proceeding, a question that has remained unanswered:

Why has Randi to date failed to produced any documentation
from the police department he was "collaborating" with
to support his story? Note, he has also stated that it was
the telephone company who asked him to tape the calls.

Meanwhile, here is a brief analysis of Randi's response.

RE: RANDI'S REPLY TO SPLICE LETTER OF 9/26/1999

The sender of the previous Randi Letter indeed misunder-
stood the 'alleged' nature of the phone calls from the teenage
boys to James Randi. Randi claimed obscene phone calls
and not blackmail. In which case it should have been a
simple matter for Randi to supply the correct information.

Instead, he has posted more absurdities! These are analyzed
as follows (please note that the transcript referred to is a
verbatim record of the audio tape recording. Any further
denial of this from Randi's supporters will be farcical for
reasons that will become obvious when you read this):


RANDI WAS ASKED: If the Police were running a tap on
your phone, Randi, and with your consent, to trace incoming
calls, as you state, why do you call a boy back when he runs
out of change? You say, and I quote: "What number are you
at, I'll call you back?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDI STATES: The police never ran a tap on my phone,
with or without my consent, nor did I ever claim that they were.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. But he later states:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never called anyone, never being able to get a number
to call, as the police hoped I would -- though we did get
a trace in one case, immediately after which an arrest
was made.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a lie. The fact is HE DID. Page 24 of transcript:

OPERATOR: "5 cents more please."
BOY:               "Can I get change later?"
OPERATOR: "Can't you get change now?"
BOY:               "No, I don't have it."
OPERATOR: "Well, so how are you going to get change later on?"
RANDI:           "What number are you at, I'll call you back."
BOY:               "775-9709"
RANDI:           "9709 - OK, I'll call you right back."

And that's precisely what Randi does:

BOY:     "Hello."
RANDI: "So we are back."


RANDI WAS ASKED: Why does the tape contain SEVEN
calls from SEVEN different teenage boys?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDI STATES: Because that was the number of
calls I was able to record. And, I've no way of knowing
whether these were teen-age boys.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

He couldn't have been listening because he asks all but
one of the boys what age they are, and every boy clearly
answers, as follows - page numbers refer to the transcript:

(page 8)
RANDI: "Yah, I guess so. How old are you?"
LARRY: "Seventeen."

(page 10)
RANDI:  "How old are you?"
VIN:        "Ah, nineteen...."

(page 12)
RANDI:  "How old are you?"
BOY :     "Seventeen."

(page 14)
RANDI:  "How old are you?"
BOY :     "I am eighteen."

(page 17)
RANDI : "How old are you and everything?"
BOY :     "Eighteen."

(page 20)
RANDI:  "How tall are you? How much you weigh? How
                many inches? "How old are you?"
BOY :     "Well, I am about eighteen."


Finally, the sender of the Randi Letter published direct
quotes from the transcript. Reactions by Randi's supp-
-orters to these revelations were of disbelief. Among the
several posts to newsgroups, was this one:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The tape doesn't contain anything of the kind, of course.
This is nothing but a bald-faced lie - like the rest of Anon-
-ymous' questions" and statements."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, sorry to disappoint Avital Pilpel and his fellow Randi
devotees, but your hero says otherwise:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDI STATES: Yes, these were comments I made to
keep them on the line. I was told to "talk dirty," because
that's what they wanted to hear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Randi has been 'talking dirty' for too long and it's time the world was made aware of  what he has been trying to suppress all these years. The tape is only a part of the evidence that investigators have been accumulating. Now seems as good a time as any for this evidence to be made available. And, now that Randi has publicly confirmed that the tape is indeed a genuine reproduction of his conversations with these boys, people can no longer deny its authenticity. What they must now do is LISTEN to the tape in its entirety and decide for themselves if Randi is telling the
truth. It's that simple.

If he is telling the truth, he should have no reservations about giving you a copy at your request.

randi@randi.org  or  JamesRandi@COMPUSERVE.COM

Regards

N.J. Rumson

PS: At the end of his response Randi, for some reason,
        says, "And, I'm told that Chief Zerr, upon his death,
        was succeeded by his son, whose name I do not know,..."

        How about Zerr?
 

https://web.archive.org/web/19991128095050/http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/jrl5.htm

Sent: 3 October 1999

MORE ABOUT THE RANDI SEX TAPE.

Randi has stated that the boys who were telephoning
him were NOT trying to blackmail him. The calls were
being treated as ‘obscene phone calls.’ Randi claims he
NEVER claimed that the boys were trying to blackmail
him. When James Moseley published details about this
in his magazine, Saucer Smear, Randi phoned him in
anger and a correction was duly published in the following
issue. Note that this correction does not eliminate the
blackmail claim. It therefore ‘appears’ that at this time,
Randi DID consider the callers to be blackmailers.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In his first article in Saucer Smear, editor James Moseley stated:

“The main item in the package was a tape, running 20
to 30 minutes, consisting largely of Randi speaking on his
phone, at his home in Rumson, N.J., to various males, whom
he was apparently soliciting in regard to sexual acts.

“This of course would tie in with the (unproven) rumors
over the years that Randi is a pederast.

“Here the story gets confusing. Randi claims he was merely
trying to entrap teenagers who were trying to blackmail him.”

---------------------------------

In the following issue of Saucer Smear, a correction appears
after James Randi telephoned Moseley:

“Whereas we stated [last time] ‘apparently it was the Rumson
Police who made the tape,” Randi states (by phone) that HE
made it, taping his own phone calls with the knowledge and
consent of the police, BECAUSE YOUNG MALES WERE
TRYING TO BLACKMAIL HIM.” [my emphasis]

WHY WAS THERE NO FURTHER CORRECTION TO THIS VITAL ‘ERROR’?

Sincerely

Tim Rance