bboyneko,
There are two sides to every story. According to Utts' colleague Ray Hyman, the experiments and the data gathered were highly flawed. Here are a couple links. The first is a laymans explanation of what happened - cutting through all of the media hype that blew up in 1995 over this non-finding. The second is Ray Hyman's actual report.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html
http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html
Here is an excerpt from his report:
The secrecy under which the SRI and SAIC programs was conducted necessarily cut them off from the communal aspects of scientific inquiry. The checks and balances that come from being an open part of the disciplinary matrix were absent. With the exception of the past year or so, none of the reports went through the all-important peer-review system. Worse, promising findings did not have the opportunity of being replicated in other laboratories.
Making matters even worse is the use of the same judge across all experiments. The judging of viewer responses is a critical factor in free-response remote viewing experiments. Ed May, the principle investigator, as I understand it, has been the sole judge in all the free response experiments. May's rationale for this unusual procedure was that he is familiar with the response styles of the individual viewers. If a viewer, for example, talks about bridges, May--from his familiarity with this viewer--might realize that this viewer uses bridges to refer to any object that is on water. He could then interpret the response accordingly to make the appropriate match to a target. Whatever merit this rationale has, it results in a methodological feature that violates some key principles of scientific credibility. One might argue that the judge, for example, should be blind not only about the correct target but also about who the viewer is. More important, the scientific community at large will be reluctant to accept evidence that depends upon the ability of one specific individual. In this regard, the reliance on the same judge for all free-response experiments is like the experimenter effect. To the extent that the results depend upon a particular investigator the question of scientific objectivity arises. Scientific proof depends upon the ability to generate evidence that, in principle, any serious and competent investigator--regardless of his or her personality--can observe.
As the parapsychologist John Palmer has recognized, parapsychologists will have to go beyond demonstrating the presence of a statistical anomaly before they can claim the presence of psychic functioning. This is because, among other things, the existence of a statistical anomaly is defined negatively. Something is occurring for which we have no obvious or ready explanation. This something may or may not turn out to be paranormal. According to Palmer, parapsychologists will have to devise a positive theory of the paranormal before they will be in a position to claim that the observed anomalies indicate paranormal functioning.
An experiment or study is not generally accepted in the scientific community unless the results can be replicated. So far this has not happened, so for now the results are just an anomally.
As far as your girlfriend's skill, methinks she could be having some fun with you. But if you are confident in her skills, I would suggest that she go for the million dollar prize from Uri Gellar. Also, I would not be against being involved in an online test. Maybe if she could do something similar with me over the Internet I think that would prove to be interesting. I'm not sure how scientific the results would be, though, regardless of whether they were positive or negative, but it might be fun.
As far as the police using psychics - police are fooled too. Sometimes they are forced to use them by the request of the public. I've read that 70% of US police departments have used psychics at one time or another, but only 3% said they would ever use one again. They use many techniques to give the impression that they have made hits, such as "the body is near water", which could mean near a river, a gutter, or in the bathroom. Some of the techniques are shown here:
http://skepdic.com/psychdet.html
I just know that it is true the hand is quicker than the eye. That's what makes magic tricks seem so real. People can use psychology to their advantage in the same way - and some don't even realize they are doing it. But in the end, they are just tricks.
rem
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell