Sunday 29 April 2012

Randi in Trouble

Interesting little sub-article in Fortean Times this month.  I have checked with my superiors in the Grand Liberal Conspiracy, and it seems that this in not one of ours, so I can reveal the following without fear of being hounded from my day job. 

James Randi, hero of skepticism [sic], relatively recently came out as gay and revealed that he has for long been living with a man known as Jose Luis Alvarez.  Alvarez has been involved with Randi's CSICOP and JREF organisations for some time, often posing as a 'psychic' himself to ridicule the excessively credulous. 

Now it transpires that 'the man known as Jose Luis Alvarez' is not in fact Jose Luis Alvarez at all, but one Deyvi Pena, an illegal immigrant to the USA.  This raises questions about how much Randi knew of his partner's illegal activities.  FT is (perhaps ironically) commendably sceptical on the subject, stating that:

'Pena'Alvarez's dual identity only came to light when the real Alvarez (a teacher's aide from New York) tried to take out a passport in 2010 and the federal authorities realised that someone else had already done so - using Alvarez's name, date of birth and social security number - in 1987 [...] A 1986 Toronto Star story on Randi mentions his assistant being one 'David [sic] Pen, a young man of about 20'.  This would suggest that Randi must have been aware that Pena had changed his name to Alvarez by 1988 [...] it appears that, to meet Pena's bail conditions, Randi swore under oath that he had seen Pena's Venezuelan passport years ago.' 

Further research online appears to slam-dunk the case against 'Alvarez'; a slew of witnesses who knew Pena in the 1980s have testified that photos of 'Alvarez' are the man they knew as Pena, he apparently gave conflicting statements to the police about where he was born (New York or Venezuela) and Randi, acting on his legal advice, has declined to comment on the matter but has commented that 'Alvarez' is Pena 'if that's who you think he is'. 

So far, Wikipedia appears to be silent on the subject - but it would appear that there are questions over the honesty of a sceptical great. 

No comments:

Post a Comment