People are complicated. Case in
point: Eusapia Palladino. Even though she cheated whenever she could, she seems to also have had genuine powers:
I am afraid not. You need to look into this case in more detail, especially the primary sources. The paranormal website you are referring to is not citing many sources. What it is referring to is the Feilding report.
Between November 21 and December 19, 1908, the team of professional skeptics spent several weeks in the Hotel Victoria in the medium's native city of Naples and were able to observe an incredibly wide range of spiritistic phenomena. Each of the members published lengthy reports on the remarkable Palladino, and each of them came away from the exhaustive series of seances quite convinced that the medium had the ability to release an extremely potent paranormal force. They also noted that Palladino would cheat if she were allowed to do so, but because of their strict controls, she was forced to abandon the easier path of trickery and produce genuine phenomena.
This is incorrect. The committee consisted of three psychical researchers (all members of the SPR)- not skeptics. Hereward Carrington, W. W. Baggally and Everard Feilding. None of these men were 'professional' skeptics. All three of these men had written books endorsing paranormal phenomena. True they did all expose some fraudulent mediums in their research but Carrington had written over 50 books endorsing the paranormal. Carrington also confessed to having an affair with the medium Mina Crandon, a medium who was later exposed as fraudulent but Carrington endorsed as genuine.
Baggally is the author of the book "Telepathy: Genuine and Fraudulent" etc.
Everard Feilding was already a believer in the paranormal - he had previously endorsed the feats of another fraudulent medium in 1908. He was also married to the polish medium Stanislawa Tomczyk and endorsed her feats (Tomczyk was later exposed). So you see the term 'professional skeptics' is misleading. You are looking at three men here who
already were believers in the paranormal before they investigated Palladino.
but because of their strict controls, she was forced to abandon the easier path of trickery and produce genuine phenomena
This is incorrect, if you read the original Feilding report we see Palladino's feet were not properly controlled.
Frank Podmore in his book The Newer Spiritualism (1910) wrote a comprehensive critique of the Feilding report. According to Podmore the report provided insufficient information at crucial moments and the witness accounts from the investigators contained contradictions and inconsistences on who was holding Palladino's feet and hands. Podmore discovered various statements by the investigators conflicted with each other on what they claimed to have observed. Some of the statements were also written days after the events took place. Podmore wrote the report "at almost every point leaves obvious loopholes for trickery." During the séances the long black curtains were often intermixed with Palladino's long black dress. Palladino told Professor Bottazzi the black curtains were "indispensable." Researchers have suspected Palladino used the curtain to conceal her feet.
And there is serious problems with conducting a 'scientific' investigation in a dark hotel room. I am sure you would even agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusapia_Palladino
So the controls were far from water-tight.
More importantly, in 1910 Feilding would re-test Palladino but this time in the presence of a professional magician and skeptic William S. Marriott. Palladino was caught moving the objects with her feet and hands and breaking free from control. Feilding and Marriott both concluded none of the phenomena was genuine. You see when you have a professional magician present they are nearly always catch the sleight of hand or trickery.
Do you want to read this report?
Everard Feilding, William Marriott. (1910).
Report on Further Series of Sittings with Eusapia Palladino at Naples. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research. Volume 15: 20-32.
(click on the link, it is online).
The paranormal website you cited does not cover this further investigation.
The rational conclusion is that Palladino was a fraud, not a 'mixture' of fraud and genuine spiritualist phenomena. The Feilding report though was just one investigation. It is possible to name twenty different researchers and scientists who caught Palladino in fraud (from more than six different countries covering a period of over 20 years). You can find all these exposures in the literature. Palladino is a poor example to be using for anything 'paranormal'. Regards.