James Randi’s Alleged Sex Tape
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.
….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.”
“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]
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 se ntence 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 run s 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)
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
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?
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
