Page One
Go to Page Two
Note: All
questions posted on this page are posted in chronological order by the
date they were received.
Question 1 - June
18, 2001 - Carly Everett from Westminster, MD asked, "Who
are you? How did you know Raychel?"
Response 1: I am a
personal consultant and provided my services to Ms. Vanderhoff for a
very brief period of her life. The reason it was so brief was that Ms.
Vanderhoff was murdered, and not due to a lack of satisfaction with my
consultation. During our time together, I attempted to assist Ms.
Vanderhoff in putting several of her personal matters to rest. While
she did not always follow my advice on these matters, I respected her
decisions and did not seek to either actively or passively change her
mind.
Question 2 - September 10, 2001 - Christina from Evansville, IN asked,
"Besides the abuse from her parents, what weighed on Raychel's heart
and mind to bring her to you? Did she feel guilt about some ill she
had done someone? I appreciate that you must be discreet in these
matters but a young woman's life has been taken, and any light you can
shed on what was going on in her heart and mind may also shed some
light on this investigation."
Response 2:
Actually, Ms. Vanderhoff did not bring herself to me. I brought myself
to Ms. Vanderhoff. I detailed our first encounters in
“Privileged and
Confidential.” Ms. Vanderhoff did not feel guilt about her family.
Quite the opposite was true. Ms. Vanderhoff was the victim of abuse.
It was the abuser, her deceased father, who directed me to intervene
in her life so that he could communicate with her again. That was how
our interactions began.
Question
3 - October 26, 2001 - Troy from Windsor, VT asked, "Where were you at
the time of the killing?"
Response 3:
I
spent the evening seeing clients. While you may doubt this due to the
late hour of Raychel’s murder, please know that most of my business is
conducted during those late evening hours. It is my most lucrative
time, as I charge more for near-midnight consultations. Many clients,
including Raychel, prefer consultations near midnight. Perhaps it is
because so many people connect my practice to the occult and the
occult is connected to the night. Many less-aware people believe the
evening enhances their connection with my consultations. Raychel said
it best during one of our meetings, “It’s just a trick of the night.”
If requested by Nick Graves, I can submit a verifiable record of my
appointments and the payments received that day as proof of my
whereabouts.
Question 4 - February 24, 2002 - Ken Kincaid from Los
Angeles, CA asked, "One question about something that has been
bothering me about you. . . You stated in your Memory
"Privileged and Confidential"
that you began receiving 'visions' for Raychel on June 6, 2000 even
though you did not meet Raychel until June 8th. Perhaps you
noticed that
Kyle
McAllister seriously abused Raychel on that very same day. I
find that to be an amazing coincidence. Even though you knew of
the extent of Kyle's abuse of Raychel, you continued to consider him a
'safe harbor' for her. In addition, you have remained an
advocate for his innocence after the crime. My question is this
. . . how are the two of you connected?"
Response 4:
I am not connected to Mr. McAllister in any way, despite your
accusation. I wish that I could prove that such a connection
does not exist, but that would be as difficult as proving your
whereabouts on the night of Raychel's murder.
Question 5 - March 27, 2002 -
Lance Wagner passed the following
question to Anna Fantiani when Tony C. Miller, Jr. from Easton, PA
asked him, "Will my wife Christie Justice still marry me?"
Response 5:
Disregarding Mr. Wagner’s obvious skepticism, I am indeed a specialist
in matters of this nature; however, my services are neither impersonal
nor free. E-mail is too cold a medium to properly divine your
situation. In addition, I prefer to see clients at my parlor, which is
a more comfortable and personable setting. I find that keeping a
consistent ritual allows me to better serve as a spiritual conduit for
my clients.
I would
also like to point out for the record that if Ms. Justice is your
wife, then she has already married you; therefore your question is
moot.
Question 6 - April 8, 2002 - Julie from IL asked, "I
would just like to know what your opinion is of Sergei Brosovsky and
do you see him in a good or bad light? Thank you for your time!"
Response 6:
I do not have an opinion about Sergei Brosovsky. I only met him
briefly. Also, during our consultations, Raychel and I did not speak
about him at any length. That being said, she must have had some
feelings for him and he seemed genuinely moved when I spoke with him.
Question 7 - April 10, 2002 - Sharon C. from
Asheville, NC asked, "Before her murder, Raychel told Sergei that she
had recently confessed everything to someone. Were you that person? If
so, what did she tell you? Thanks."
Response 7:
Yes, I was the person who Raychel confessed herself to. We spoke a
number of times in the three months before her murder. I have already
stated some of the points of my consultations with her in
Privileged and Confidential.
While I could go into further depth than that article, I hesitate out
of respect for those who were closest to Raychel. Raychel wrote
letters to those people that I distributed after her murder, and I do
not want to venture further than Raychel herself proceeded with them.
|
"To protect the
privacy of Raychel’s letters (which should never have been mentioned
in the first place), I will not provide you with a list of the
people who received her posthumous letters." |
Question 8 - April 13, 2002 - Sharon C. from
Asheville, NC asked, "I know that you are reluctant to reveal any
information that may be considering privileged but can you give the
names of the people that Raychel wrote letters to? Were you also a
recipient of one of those letters? If so, can you reveal any
information contained in the letter without giving out anything you
would consider confidential? Thanks again, Anna."
Response 8:
To protect the privacy of Raychel’s letters (which should never have
been mentioned in the first place), I will not provide you with a list
of the people who received her posthumous letters. I can, however,
inform you that I did receive a letter from her. In fact, had I not
received her letter then none of the others would have received
theirs. The only thing at this time that I care to divulge is that my
letter from Raychel instructed me to deliver her letters to their
rightful recipients. The letters themselves were written as part of my
consultations with her. I would also like to add that I kept Raychel’s
letters sealed, so I cannot comment on any other letter, should they
choose to discuss the nature of their letters.
Question 9 - April 14, 2002 - Christina from
Evansville, IN asked, "You have said that you gave letters
written by Raychel to several people. Why have you not divulged who
those people are? Did you actually read the letters, (and possibly
help compose them) or just act as the messenger? Were they
hand-written, and signed by Raychel? Could one of the letters not
possibly be a motive for murder? Also, I am curious of your feelings
about David Vanderhoff. You have said that he is "less" than Raychel.
What exactly did you mean by that? Do you know of something in their
collective past so explosive that a "lesser" person may commit murder
over it? Possibly to keep their reputation from being soiled? What
does your intuition tell you? Thanks."
Response 9:
I have not – and will not – divulge exactly who received a letter from
Raychel because the letters were meant solely for those who received
them. They were not intended for publication, or even delivery for
that matter. They were created as part of my consultations with
Raychel. The idea was to temporarily diminish the feelings that were
overwhelming her, so that we could possibly address their sources. I
recommended that Raychel write letters to those she felt strongest
about. I specifically recommended that she hand write the letters
because it is a more personal transfer of emotion than simply typing.
Raychel wrote the letters between consultations and gave them to me in
a single, sealed envelope. After her murder, I was in the process of
cleaning out my files when I opened the single envelope. It contained
several, smaller envelopes, one of which was addressed to me. My
letter stated that I was to deliver her letters and maintain her
secrecy. Mr. Brosovsky has since broken that covenant, but I will hold
mine.
Is it
possible that one of the letters could contain a motive for murder?
Perhaps. It is also possible that she wrote material which is so
sensitive that – even after her own death – she intended to protect
those secrets from ever coming to light. Mr. Wagner chose to create
Painseeker as a tribute to his wife. However, Raychel would never have
allowed her deepest secrets to become public knowledge. While her
poetry was intensely personal, this was apparently beyond even that,
and I will not co-operate in the collection of such data beyond
acknowledging its basic existence. I have and that is that.
As for
Mr. Vanderhoff, he is less than Raychel. Why? Because while Raychel
stood on her principle against her family, Mr. Vanderhoff accepted his
father’s brutal lead. While Mr. Vanderhoff has since gone on to
success, he did so at the cost of his basic human morals. He allowed
his sister to be beaten repeatedly by their father, and although he
was the older brother, he did not act as such. For that, he is less
than Raychel. In response to his diminishment, Raychel developed into
the stronger sibling. The cost for which was her childhood -- the
deprivation of which was the fount of the misery that had been the
hallmark of her life.
|
"While Mr.
Vanderhoff has since gone on to success, he did so at the cost of
his basic human morals. He allowed his sister to be beaten
repeatedly by their father, and although he was the older brother,
he did not act as such." |
Question 10 - April 25, 2002 - Julie from IL asked, "I can't
believe you would hold back something that could put an end to all of
this craziness. Raychel's killer should be caught, and what if these
letters prove Sharon and/or Laura to be innocent? How can you worry
about Raychel's feelings now? Justice should be brought, and those
letters will provide closure to a lot of people. You should tell Nick
Graves who received the letters because I have a feeling letters will
come up that have never been written by Raychel in the first place.
Not everything has to be posted to the website, especially things that
are not relevant to the investigation. I guess there are some things
that do not pertain to the investigation. Will you please report on
the number of letters that Raychel wrote so if too many come up or not
enough that Nick will know someone is lying?"
Response 10:
Your “question” is a poorly veiled attempt to intimidate me into
providing a list of those who received a posthumous letter from
Raychel. I have already stated my reasons why I will not and I will
not budge from that stance. That being said, it seems that some of the
recipients are less scrupulous about Raychel’s letters, and have
agreed to post them on the web site. In the interest of ensuring that
the site is not inundated with numerous false letters, I will state
that I delivered eight letters on Raychel’s behalf.
Question 11 - April 25, 2002 - Julie from IL asked, "Through your
psychic ability you have no visions whatsoever of who killed Raychel?"
Response 11:
I have tried to commune with Raychel several times since her murder;
however, I have not been able to reach her. It is likely due to the
fact that Raychel and I were too close to each other to be able to
reach each other beyond the veil. My feelings for her are too strong
to allow me to properly channel her. Without Raychel’s assistance, my
other powers are useless to assist directly in the investigation.
Question 12 - April 29, 2002 - Kelly from AZ asked, "You
stated in a previous answer to a reader's question that you delivered
eight letters on Raychel's behalf? Do you include the letter you
received from Raychel in that total?"
Response 12:
No. There were nine total letters. I received one, and then I
delivered the remaining eight letters.
Question 13 - April 29, 2002 - Julie from IL asked, "Can
you at least tell us one more thing about the letters: Do the 8
letters you delivered include yours or does your letter make it 9
total? Geoffrey said he didn't get one? Thank you for your time!"
Response 13:
There were nine letters in total.
Question 14 - April 29, 2002 - Kelly from AZ asked, "Assuming
there were eight letters that you passed out NOT including your own,
did you pass them out to eight DIFFERENT people? In other words, did
anyone receive two letters from Raychel? Thank you."
Response 14:
No one received two letters from Raychel. I will also point out that
there were no letters addressed to two people. Each person received
one letter.
Question 15 - April 29, 2002 - Sharon C. from
Asheville, NC asked, "You stated concerning privilege and
confidential agreements that 'psychics, however, do not share this
type of legal protection...This lack of legal standing gives me the
freedom to write what I am about to write...' Other than what you
stated in 'Privileged and Confidential', are you planning on answering
any question with specific detail? Maybe it's just me, but it appears
that you politely refuse to answer any question posted to you or are
purposely vague in your response. Why is this? Where did this new
found 'respect for those closest to Raychel' come from?
"Please do not take my questions as a personal attack. It just seems
that some people who have been close to Raychel don’t want to reveal
what they know. If that is the case, why post on this site at all?
Each person chose to post here. Yet when asked questions, you want to
hide behind privilege and confidential clauses. No one is 100% sure
that the correct individuals have been arrested. Until they are
convicted in a court of law, I would like to obtain as much
information as I can about those who were close to her. You even
stated 'It is possible that one of the letters could contain a motive
for murder? Perhaps.'”
"Again, I would like to know what Raychel said in her letter to you.
The information may be helpful in the investigation and/or murder
trial."
|
"I have a very
specific reason to oppose the publication of Raychel’s posthumous
letters. That reason is that Raychel herself opposed it." |
Response 15:
One of the reasons I agreed to post to this site was to provide a
framework of Raychel’s psyche as I knew it during our brief time
together. The price for allowing me to post here is that I also have
to answer direct (as well as rambling) questions about Raychel. These
questions ask for specific answers that do not take into account the
complexities of Raychel’s life. Raychel’s life was an incredible
mosaic. And if I gave you a fragment of a mosaic, would you know what
color the complete work? No. You would only know what color the piece
in front of you was. Without knowing the whole, the fragment is of
little use. I intend to give a complete rendering of Raychel’s life,
but I have to be allowed to do it on my own timeline. Forcing it could
allow for distortions to be viewed.
My
reason for opposing Raychel’s letters is entirely different (although
you do not seem to believe it, yet). While there was no specific
privilege covering the sessions that Raychel and I engaged in (which I
have decided to detail), I have a very specific reason to oppose the
publication of Raychel’s posthumous letters. That reason is that
Raychel herself opposed it. In my letter, Raychel told me that I was
not to even read the letters I delivered. They were intended solely
for the recipients. Let me make this further assertion: If Raychel
believed that her life was in danger, why would she specifically ask
that I not read or divulge the existence of her letters? Would she not
have requested that I deliver her letters to the police? Raychel meant
to keep her letters secret, but you will cast that request aside so
that you can learn more about her from her own views? That is
incongruous and I will not help.
Continued on Page Two
