googlee9042de53e31a648.html

Mystic faculties are structured in terms of known and unknown outcomes…the only criteria for a correct prediction is that it mostly (but not quite) matches a case referenced in a newspaper, and the criteria for a wrong prediction is that Browne’s claim is the opposite of what actually occurred.

The metric for the final accuracy count is based on what is correct compared to the unknown or to totally wrong claims. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate, that in the 115 available cases Browne claims to have solved, it turned out she was correct exactly ZERO times and TOTALLY WRONG twenty-five times. Ninety out of the 115 cases ended up with unknown outcomes. In a previous examination of thirty-five cases claim files made by  Ms. Browne predictions was published in Brill’s reference content .

The magazine (not the Journal) concluded: “In twenty-one, the details were too vague to be verified. Of the remaining fourteen, law-enforcement officials or family members involved in the investigations say that Browne had played no useful role.” This article greatly expands the scope of the Brill’s Content article by looking at Browne’s comments to the press and on television about missing persons and criminal cases. No case was excluded. We have listed each case Browne made predictions about as well as provided a reference or broadcast date. When we began to research this, we expected Browne to have been correct at least a few times, but as the list demonstrates, she was not. The references show that the only cases in which Browne was not proven wrong are those that remain unsolved.

We are sorry for the quality of these videos, however, they were the best we could find to support the article. – The Editor