Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[SteveGrenard]

Keen’s Challenge

Chris French greatly exaggerates the amount of scholarship required for an impartial assessment of the Dorr-Lethe case, but I won’t press the point because all he has to do his explain away a much simpler case which I have been investigating with Guy Playfair: an Irishwoman is badgered by the voices of a recently murdered woman she’s never heard of. She provides the police with 125 specific statements about the deceased, the murder scene, and the personality, appearance, route taken, method of entry and name of the murderer. Apart from a few unverifiable statements, all but one proved correct.

We have examined all the original documentary evidence. Apart from a very few statements, all must have had a paranormal origin. The only issue is where the information came from – the dead woman or the minds of the policeman who discovered the body, the murderer himself and the woman’s family. The dead woman was Jacqui Poole, and the murderer, Pokie Ruark, was given a life sentence at the Old Bailey in August, 2001.

Any non-paranormal explanation?

Montague Keen
London

[SteveGrenard]

Youens takes up Keen’s challenge (Letter in The Skeptic-UK, 16.2)

The case highlighted by Montageue Keen in the last paragraph of his letter (see The Skeptic 16.1) is a very interesting one, and superficially a paranormal explanation may seem the only credible choice. However, I believe an alternative account is possible. I’ll begin with a summary of the case.

The body of Jacqueline Poole, aged 25, was discovered on Sunday, 13 February 1983 at her flat in Ruislip. She had been murdered two days earlier on Friday 11th. According to newspaper reports at the time, she had been beaten, sexually assaulted and strangled in the lounge of her flat. There was no sign of forced entry and police thought it possible she may have known her murderer. More than 10 items of jewelry were missing , which the police were hoping would turn up and provide valuable clues. A later report said police believed the murder was premeditated.

One of the investigating officers, has written in The Police Magazine:

(http:www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2001/12_2001_ghost.htm)

about an interview he had with 22 year old medium Christine Holohan. According to Bartters, the medium provided a great deal of startlingly accurate information. She had been contacted by a dead spirit calling herself “Jackie Hunt” (Mrs. Poole’s unpublished maiden name). She gave accurate details abut the murder scene including “the victim’s position, clothing and injuries. Batters admits Holohan was not 100% accurate, but out of 130 points more than 120 “now seem to have been proved absolutely correct.” She gave information detailing the age and month of birth of the murderer, along with skin and hair colouring, number of tattoos and details of his previous convictions. However, even more remarkably the medium, via automatic writing, wrote down the name “pokie.” Eighteen years later
on Friday 24 August 2001 DNA technology finally helped convict the murderer, Anthony “Pokie” Ruark.

But there are other facts that could point to another, non-paranormal explanation.

The medium, Christine Holohan, lived within 10 minutes of the murder scene and she was of a similar age to the victim. Holohan has never repeated this success either before or after Mrs. Poole’s murder.

The information she gave to the police provided no new information. Ruark was in fact already suspected by the police. The one piece of information that could have been of enormous help to the police was the location of the jewelry and in this respect the medium was of no help. She was also incorrect when giving the time of the murder. At this point I can only guess at a possible explanation but I believe there is one that has more credibility than spirit communication from beyond the grave.

Suppose someone strongly suspected or perhaps even knew that Ruark was the murderer and wanted to get this information to the police without being traced back (possibly worried about retribution?). They could have passed this information on to a local medium who could then obligingly tell the police. But why not just send an anonymous letter? Well, perhaps Ruark was aware of that someone else knew the truth and would immediately put two and two together, but this way the police would not be likely to make public their source.

Was there someone who suspected Ruark and wanted to push the police in the right direction? Yes there was. According to The Times 25 August 2001: “Detective Chief Inspector Norman McKinlay was already investigating the murder, in which suspicion over Ruark was renewed by a call from a member of the public in 1999” (my emphasis).

This of course may not be the true explanation and we may well never know --- unless someone comes forward. Other explanations are also possible. The medium and victim were of similar ages, and may have had mutual friends, or Holohan may simply have overheard someone talking about what had happened. However, I believe my first hypothesis is most likely.

Finally we should not forget that ultimately it was a combination of a diligent investigation by the police together with recent advances in forensic science that ultimately got a conviction and not a ghost!

Tony Youens
Derbyshire

[SteveGrenard]

Reply by M. Keen (dated: Apr 24, 2003)

A brave but doomed attempt by Tony Youens. His confessedly superficial examination contrasts with the detailed inquiries which Guy Playfair and I made when interviewing both detectives and the medium and examining the original records.

Christine Holohan lived well over two miles away, not ten minutes walk. Her
sole inaccuracy was a reference to Saturday instead of Friday as the night of the
murder. Whether the experience has ever been repeated is irrelevant to the issue
of paranormality, but in fact, according to Batters as well as Holohan herself, it
has been.

Ruark had already given the police a persuasive alibi. He was no longer a suspect
when Holohan was interviewed. As for the supposed inability of the medium to
provide a clue to what happened to the stolen jewels after the murder: in fact a written
clue, considered meaningless at the time, was provided: details will have to await
publication of our full report.

The idea that Holohan had received her information from someone not wishing to
Iinform the police directly is another good idea blown away by the fact that she
would have had to receive the information from five separate sources who were either
unknown to one another or mutually hostile, and included the murderer himself!
the police would hardly have been ignored of such an elaborate web had it existed.

The case was reopened in 2000 because another person, not Ruark, has been
accused of the murder. Advances in DNA technology enabled Ruark’s discarded
pullover, rescued by Detective Batters, 18 years earlier, to pin the crime. It was
Holohan’s uniquely detailed evidence, plus a spontaneous psychometric “reading” which
produced three strikingly accurate pieces of personal information about one of the
detectives, that so impressed Batters and prompted him to ransack Ruark’s dustbin
and retrieve the fatal garment. Without it the case would have collapsed.

Holohan produced a large number of statements, the accuracy and relevancy of which
cannot be attributed to any normal function. Premature judgment based on inadequate
first-hand knowledge and selective evidence is unwise.

Montague Keen

[Ed]

Steve, I'd call the Irish washerwoman a suspect. That aside, is there a verbatim transcript of the statements?

It seems, so far, that we have anecdotes. Where are those police reports? Are they not confidential? How was Keene able to get to them? If he could can not we, as well?

[SteveGrenard]

I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a few things.

The sequence of events regarding letters and replies goes like this. M. Keen issued a challenge for sceptics to give a non-paranormal explanation regarding the Jacqui Poole murder case. Chris French invited me to respond as he knew I had looked into it. Keen has now replied to my letter which will presumably be published in the next issue. Having had a preview of Keen's reply I am in the process of replying once more. Chris French will then allow Keen to come back with the final word.

"Stumpy" is indeed a serving UK police officer. As far as I know there is no big deal over his identity which will soon be apparent. After (but not prompted by) my first letter he contacted me and we have worked together on the investigation ever since.

As it turned out our reply was rather lengthy for a letter so what we propose to do is publish our material on the Internet and then I will give a somewhat briefer reply to Keen's response in The Skeptic. One reason for taking this approach is because Keen and Playfair are publishing their findings following peer review. In addition to Tony Batters kindly allowing me to see his notes we (i.e. 'Stumpy' and me) have, between us, spoken to DCI Norman McKinlay and ex-Superintendent Tony Lundy and I have to say IMHO the supernatural explanation is looking decidely weak.

All the best,

Tony
<http://www.tonyyouens.com>


cc: Chris French and M Keen

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Ed
Steve, I'd call the Irish washerwoman a suspect. That aside, is there a verbatim transcript of the statements?

It seems, so far, that we have anecdotes. Where are those police reports? Are they not confidential? How was Keene able to get to them? If he could can not we, as well?

Playfair, Keen and now Youens have talked with and presumably have viewed the documentation you mention above. This will be given in more detail in Playfair and Keen's paper. However, Ed, Tony Youens and our friend Officer Stumpy are looking at these documents from the skeptical viewpoint so I am afraid for now you will have to rely on their playbacks. Obviously pages and pages of handwirtten notes in police notebooks cannot be offered in original form to a mass audience here at JREF's forum.

I understand your reaction. How could the medium have alleged to have given so much information without being involved? I thought of this as well, if not as the actual perpetrator but perhaps someone who came to the scene, perhaps at the invitation of the Ruark, later. However since she shopped Ruark to the police, I would wonder why he wouldn't implicate her in return. Even now. Actually this points up an interesting side issue which is why mediums who deal in this area are in a precarious position and the few who go public are probably phonies
or yes, involved somehow giving them intimate details. Barring a normal explanation still others may not come forward because they are rightfully paranoid they will somehow be implicated.


I would think Holohan would've thought herself as playing a dangerous game if she were involved and use the medium's ruse to give her information.

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

I think it is important to establish "the facts" before we get into this.

Can you clarify (via M.KEEN) what "original records" have been examined (typed or handwritten) and when these records were made? Is Keen referring to the original case papers compiled during the investigation?

Can we agree that the statement ".....that so impressed Batters and prompted him to ransack Ruark’s dustbin
and retrieve the fatal garment" is erroneous? Do we agree that Batters did not recover any items of clothing during the enquiry?

best wishes

Stumpy

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy:

Tony Youens says above that Batters allowed you and him to see his notes. Presumably these would be the same notes.
In which case you saw them. In fact, obviously, I have not.

Steve

edited to add:

I cannot agree to anything regarding recovery of the pullover. You would have to ask Batters that question.

[Lord Kenneth]

A Google search on Jacqui Poole turned up nothing relevent.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

So, you have nothing to back this up? Zip? Zilch? Nada?

Did you honestly think that anyone would buy your tale?

Same old s**t from you... :rolleyes:

[Cleopatra]

I take for granted that the "original documentation" includes a detailed investigation of whether the medium was with anyway connected with the victim and her environment.

But of course since there is nothing available we cannot check that.

[Ed]

Dunno. I think that if a copper in the US went around sharing his notes there would be hell to pay. Again, one cops notes are only a part of an entire investigation. I wonder if this can really go anywhere.

[CFLarsen]

It's the usual crapola from Steve and his cronies. Rumors, allegations, anecdotes, hyped-up claims...it never amounts to anything else than self-aggrandizement.

[SteveGrenard]

Lord Kenneth: A Google search on Jacqui Poole turned up nothing relevent.

I agree there is very little out there on the internet beyond the links given in the above posts, plus of course, the following backgrounders which are pasted from Yahoo's UK site. Although not exactly "nothing" they shed little additional light on the case other than we already know from the above links and correspondence between Keen and Youens:

Telegraph | News
... is very gratifying to be able to help Jacqueline's family to ... After seeing the only murder case he failed to solve ... he said he was pleased for Mrs Poole's family ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/25/ndna25.xml more results from this site

BBC News | UK | How science caught up with killer
... Jacqueline Poole was strangled. ... Mrs Poole's husband Malcolm later remarried and moved away from London. But he is said to be delighted that her murder has been ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1459056.stm more results from this site

Psychic News New Age Tiscali
... Through her Jacqueline Poole was able to point the finger ... to convict Anthony Ruark of murder, as tiny ... Recollecting her involvement in this case Christina said ...
www.tiscali.co.uk/lifestyle/newage/features/murder.html

THE FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE
... the Metropolitan Police find the killer of Jacqueline Poole, who was ... Dr Jonathan Whitaker had revisited evidence from the murder using more ... This case shows the ...
www.forensic.gov.uk/forensic/news/press_releases/2001/24-08-01.htm

Observer | Gone but not forgotten
... responsible for putting away Anthony Ruark for the murder of his lover, Jacqueline Poole, 18 years earlier. McKinlay started reinvestigating the case on his ...
observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4606535-102280,00.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If nothing else they verify the existence of the case which seems that those not familiar with it wish to dispute.

[Cleopatra]

The case might be verified but look what the first link--Telegraph News-- that you provided say :

A MAN who got away with murder for 18 years was jailed for life at the Old Bailey yesterday, thanks to advances in DNA technology. ( bold face mine)

You provided evidence that an old case was solved thanks to Science and not because a medium provided the Police with important info. :)

[Lucianarchy]

The story starts when Christina was about 12 or 13. “I was looking into cups and seeing things and thinking it was all quite normal and that everyone could see what I could.


“I soon discovered while on holiday in the Isle of Man that I was indeed different and that I had a gift, granted only to a few. I saw death in the cup of a 16-year-old girl who within two hours was notified of her mother’s death.


Eighteen years ago in 1983, Christina was living in a quiet place in England, called Ruislip Gardens, with her sister, Mary. She was working as a medium/psychic when the news broke of the murder of Jacquie Poole.


Jacquie (25) had been raped and strangled. Christina, like everyone in the area, was shocked at the tragic death of Jacquie. Christina never knew Jacquie notwithstanding the fact that she lived only ten minutes by bus away from where Jacquie lived and worked.


Within days of the murder Christine explained: “I became aware of a spirit trying to come through and as I was trying to earn a living I used my guide to hold back the spirit but she was very insistent and agitated “I was asleep one night and felt the blankets being pulled violently and when I awoke it was to find that my blanket was on fire, I had left the gas fire lighting, a dangerous thing to do.


“There was no one in the room only me so I knew that someone had saved me. I asked was Jacquie present and the light flickered and I agreed to allow her make contact.”


What followed for Christina was the most horrific journey she had ever taken. Jacquie showed me “her last moments on earth, every detail was shown as if in freeze frame shots, like watching a film, nothing was left to the imagination. Jacquie pleaded with me to bring her murderer to justice”.
http://archives.tcm.ie/carlownationalist/2001/09/17/story109.asp

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The case might be verified but look what the first link--Telegraph News-- that you provided say :

( bold face mine)

You provided evidence that an old case was solved thanks to Science and not because a medium provided the Police with important info. :)

If you read the correspondence of Keen as well as Youens' response you will see that no one disputes the fact that Ruark was brought to justice and convicted on the basis of DNA technology and not the medium's word for it. This is a case where the murderer was not caught and convicted for 18 years until such technology became available in spite of a medium's report to the police describing the details of the murder and the name of the perpetrator. The police dutifully recorded the medium's report but could not and did not act on it in either charging or trying to convict the perpetrator. Yes, it took the DNA evidence (not available originally) to do that.

[Cleopatra]

I wonder why the papers that refer to Tony Lunby and his house in Spain mention nothing about the above...

[SteveGrenard]

Lundy is retired from the police and lives in Spain.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Why do you post these claims of purported paranormal assistance in criminal cases, when your own links disproves you?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Telegraph | News
... is very gratifying to be able to help Jacqueline's family to ... After seeing the only murder case he failed to solve ... he said he was pleased for Mrs Poole's family ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/25/ndna25.xml more results from this site

"A MAN who got away with murder for 18 years was jailed for life at the Old Bailey yesterday, thanks to advances in DNA technology."

Not a peep about any psychic.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
BBC News | UK | How science caught up with killer
... Jacqueline Poole was strangled. ... Mrs Poole's husband Malcolm later remarried and moved away from London. But he is said to be delighted that her murder has been ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1459056.stm more results from this site

Not a peep about any psychic.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Psychic News New Age Tiscali
... Through her Jacqueline Poole was able to point the finger ... to convict Anthony Ruark of murder, as tiny ... Recollecting her involvement in this case Christina said ...
www.tiscali.co.uk/lifestyle/newage/features/murder.html


Detective Constable Tony Batters, who interviewed Christine and was the first officer at the scene of the crime, stated: Over a period of an hour and a half to two hours she went into a series of trances and she gave us information. The one common denominator was that it was all known only to the victim.

'I thought she was reading my mind because she described the scene exactly as I'd found it. She gave a completed reconstruction of how the victim was lying, what she was wearing and what her injuries were.

She gave us information about jewellery that was stolen and unusual things such as the victim wearing two of a number of rings. There was an extraordinary amount of detail. She was adamant she was only receiving information from the victim.

In fact out of the 150 specific details she provided, the only discrepancy was that she gave the wrong date for the crime, an easy mistake to make at the best of times.

If the psychic only told things that were known to the victim, how come the psychic didn't know the time of death?

If the psychic could give a complete reconstruction, how come the psychic weren't a primary suspect?

If all this was so precise, how come it was never used in court?

But, as always, stories like these have an explanation:

"Feature taken from Psychic News"

Ah. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
THE FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE
... the Metropolitan Police find the killer of Jacqueline Poole, who was ... Dr Jonathan Whitaker had revisited evidence from the murder using more ... This case shows the ...
www.forensic.gov.uk/forensic/news/press_releases/2001/24-08-01.htm

The Forensic Science Service played a crucial part in helping the Metropolitan Police find the killer of Jacqueline Poole, who was raped and murdered in her own home in London in 1983.

Not a peep about any psychic.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Observer | Gone but not forgotten
... responsible for putting away Anthony Ruark for the murder of his lover, Jacqueline Poole, 18 years earlier. McKinlay started reinvestigating the case on his ...
observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4606535-102280,00.html

Not a peep about any psychic.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If nothing else they verify the existence of the case which seems that those not familiar with it wish to dispute.

Huh? There is not a shred of evidence in these links that a psychic has helped solve any crime, Steve. What is your point, then?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The police dutifully recorded the medium's report but could not and did not act on it in either charging or trying to convict the perpetrator. Yes, it took the DNA evidence (not available originally) to do that.

So, they didn't believe her, even though she gave information that only the victim could have known? Do you understand the implications of that, Steve? Gross negligence on behalf of the police.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Keen’s Challenge
....
Any non-paranormal explanation?
....
Montague Keen
London

Errr....yes, Monty: SCIENCE!! :cool:

[Cleopatra]

Yes I read that and Telegraph mentions that Tony Lundy --who lead the original inquiry-- flew from Spain for the trial. This is an interesting detail but I find more interesting the absence of any reference to the info Lucy posted above.

[Lord Kenneth]

Don't you people know? It's the evil skeptic conspiracy! In fact ALL MURDERS are solved by the help of PSYCHICS, but evil negative-vibration rays from skeptics cloud the truth.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


The police dutifully recorded the medium's report

I am not trying to be argumentitive but how do you know that? How do you know it was not filed under "nut job"? Seriously, I expect that cas files are full of all sorts of crap. This sounds like an assertion without meaning necessarily adhering to it.

[Stumpy]

The link for Tony Youens report will be on-line within the next 60 mins (barring any technical disasters). It may be worthwhile in the meantime reviewing M.Keens comments, posted via Steve Grenard, in respect of this case in the original thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7420

Stumpy

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Ed


I am not trying to be argumentitive but how do you know that? How do you know it was not filed under "nut job"? Seriously, I expect that case files are full of all sorts of crap. This sounds like an assertion without meaning necessarily adhering to it.


Ed: Please read Detective Batters' account in the UK Police Federation's magazine at the link given in Youens' e-mail above
and decide how or where the "report" was filed. This is the report that piqued Keen and Playfair's interest in the case.
This is how I know Batters recorded the medium's statement but do I know where and how it was filed? No.

Cleo: Yes, there are no Telegraph or BBC accounts online re the psychic's involvement in this case, only the UK Police Federation article I refer to just above is available online.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


Cleo: Yes, there are no Telegraph or BBC accounts online re the psychic's involvement in this case, only the UK Police Federation article I refer to just above is available online.

First of all let's get something straight. I want you to be true. Regardless my personal opinion about mediums I read every information anticipating to be persuaded but as you understand in order to be persuaded I need logical evidences or logical theories.

This story poses me some difficulties, maybe I am missing clues.

For example, in the site of the Police Federation we have a reference to the trial that was held on Aug.2001 according to which the "hot info" regarding the medium were not disclosed to the Jury.

Why? I do not believe that the police officers that testified weren't asked in a detailed manner about the previous investigation.

I hope that you understand that if we had the references to the medium in the records of the trial, things would be different. But we don't.

Also, what mediums want most ? Publicity. Why Christina didn't came to the Press after the trial to inform the general public that it was she that has provided the Police with the important info?

[Stumpy]

Okay here is the link to Tony Youens report:

http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm (http://)

There are a number of glaring (and basic) errors in Keen's "meticulaous investigation. I will quote a few items previously posted by Keen under the original thread.

Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark.

Emphatically incorrect. Tony Batters was NOT the principal detective involved, in fact, he WAS NOT EVEN A DETECTIVE!!! Batters was a beat officer who was first to attend the scene, he was retained on the enquiry to perform administrative tasks on the enquiry. Now Keen's repeated assertions to the contrary on have two explanations, either Batters is lying about his role OR Keen has made an assumption that turned out to be hopelessly wide of the mark, which is it?

The case was indpendently investigated by Keen and Playfair and they talked to everyone involved

Incorrect, Batters had only an office based admin role in this case the people intimately involved in this investigation were Det Supt Lundy and Det Chief Inspecter McKinlay, neither of whom were spoken to by Playfair and Keen but have been spoken to by Tony Youens and I.

The official record appears in the public files and court records or so I am advised and these have been reviewed

The records reffered to above have not been officially released by the Metropolitan Police for ANY review. How then did Playfair and Keen come by them?

The psychic's account appeared in a police officer's dated notes, are part of the evidence in the case at the time

No record of the alleged interview with Holohan was submitted to the enquiry by any Police Officer.

and (Batters) was a principal witness at the eventual trial

No he wasn't! He did not give evidence, he wasn't called as part of the prosecution evidence. He did turn up in his own time and observed the proceedings.

At the very preliminary stage of the inquiry when Batters and Smith were interviewing Holohan, Ruark was not a prime suspect

See Tony Youens article. Ruark was the Prime suspect before Holohan was allegedly interviewed - this was widely known in the area.

The conviction was based on DNA found on stowed evidence, a sweater and other samples from he deceased

DCI McKinlay who lead the re-opened case and has all the facts states that he has no knowledge of the sweater. The ONLY DNA evidence submitted in evidence was that taken from the body of the deceased.

The article by Tony Youens more fully covers this case.

Thank you

Stumpy

[Stumpy]

The link isn't working!

Go to www.tonyyouens.com, click on "sitemap" then the link entitled "Did a medium identify a murderer"

Will try and get this sorted!

Stumpy

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Why? I do not believe that the police officers that testified weren't asked in a detailed manner about the previous investigation.
Are you kidding? If I were the defendant's attorney, I would dig up this information and use it to sow doubt about the whole investigation.

Would it work? To an extent, sure!

This is a case of post hoc, pure and simple.

[Stumpy]

In addition, the statement that Batters recovered a sweater from Ruarks dustbin is totally incorrect. He recovered no such item of clothing.

Stumpy

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Are you kidding? If I were the defendant's attorney, I would dig up this information and use it to sow doubt about the whole investigation.

Would it work? To an extent, sure!

This is a case of post hoc, pure and simple.

Please Mr. Larsen do not interfere with the interrogation of the witness :D

Of course you are right! There is no way that such info wasn't brought to Court.

I cannot access the site Stumpy provided but I think I know why Tony Batters didn't mention anything of those in court ; probably he never testified because he didn't have a significant role in the case...

[Stumpy]

Hi Cleopatra

You also have to consider the fact that Holohan provided NOTHING that wasn't known already!

best wishes

Stumpy

[Cleopatra]

Plus the fact , Stumpy, that if the role of Christina was so significant her story would take greater publicity than Madonna's kiss... the whole noise that Media made was about the new roads that DNA tests open for us not about the role mediums play in resolving murder cases.

[Stumpy]

DOH! Damn internet!

Try cutting and pasting this into your address bar:

http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm

[Cleopatra]

I got in just by clicking on the link. Thanks.

Very impressive! It seems that the medium provided exclusive info about a person that was arrested within the first 24 hours of the investigation.... Right!

[Ed]

Pardon me for appearing jaded but it always seems to follow the same course. Breathless assertion by a decidedly interested observer, great debate on the assertion and details provided, battle lines drawn, examination of the real data, prosaic explanation.The fact, seems to be, that they had the villain in their sights early on and when technology allowed they nailed him. Is that about it? Also, the idea that a copper would have leeway in taking anything from a crime scene seems ludicrous to me. Nothing is ever a clear woo-woo win with these stories. One has to ask oneself "why is that so?"

Now, let us play copper. What does Mr. Monegue Keene have to gain by trumping up a story? Anything?

[Stumpy]

Ed wrote:

Pardon me for appearing jaded but it always seems to follow the same course. Breathless assertion by a decidedly interested observer, great debate on the assertion and details provided, battle lines drawn, examination of the real data, prosaic explanation.The fact, seems to be, that they had the villain in their sights early on and when technology allowed they nailed him. Is that about it? Also, the idea that a copper would have leeway in taking anything from a crime scene seems ludicrous to me. Nothing is ever a clear woo-woo win with these stories. One has to ask oneself "why is that so?"

You seem to have nailed this non-story in a nutshell. The fact is that the "meticulous investigation" consisted of speaking to those who were likely to provide the desired outcome (IMHO).

Stumpy

[Cleopatra]

Well, Ed I thought about it myself.

That's why I attempted to approach the story backwards; from the end ( the trial) to the beginning : why those clues weren't brought to court? Which officer took the risk to hide such info from court and why? Honestly I do not believe that any police officer would have an interest to hide things from the court.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Stumpy
Ed wrote:



(IMHO).

Stumpy

BS, give yourself more credit.

You know we, I, get accused of being close minded. I think I am more now than I was 5 years ago. But Jesus Christ on the Millenium Wheel WTF can you expect? What, that eventually they will construct some loony story that can't be disproven in a second? The woo-woo arguments are not so much arguments as intellectual erosion. You sort of get worn down to the point where you say "yeah, whatever". And funnily enough, there are always reporters right about an inch from the woo-woos.

I sorta can see the frauds' point. It is easy work, it must be intellectually stimulating, you can come out with ANYTHING and some loon will buy into it, there is BY DEFINITION NO SUCH THING AS DAMAGE CONTROL IN WOO-WOO LAND. They probably get to pick up chicks a lot more than your average sceptic. Plus they get to "peer review" each other's papers.

The news guys too are understandable. Hell, which is better 1) DNA nabs murderer or 2) GHOST FINGERS BAD GUY!!!!!. They have to sell papers.

I don't get the believers. They are like soylant green. Weird.

[Garrette]

About a year ago on TVtalkshows, a poster named Pete (whom I believe to be Lucianarchy under another name) posted the Poole murder case as a solid example of psychics solving crimes.

We debunked it then (Lurker springs to mind). I don't recall Steve being in on the conversation, but it is disingenuous of Luci to bring it up now as if he/she doesn't know any better.

This post and the next couple are nearly verbatim copies of my posts on that board (minor grammatical fixes and such):

Okay, this after a quick search. If I were in the UK, I'd contact the agencies and look for files from the initial investigation in 1983 and then re-opened investigation in 2001.

There are 3 sources supporting the psychic-solved-the-crime version. You'll find several websites, but if you trace them, you'll find only three sources that are repeatedly referenced. The first is an article by James Millbank that appeared in "News of the World" on August 26, 2001. The second is an unattributed article appearing in "Psychic News". The third, and most detailed, is the article written by Tony Batters, an investigator on the initial case; its title is "But Ghosts Can't Testify?". This article appeared in the December 2001 issue of Police Magazine.

Do a search on Ruark and Poole and murder, and you'll find other articles discussing the solution to this murder, but these other articles, amazingly, attribute the reason to science and persistence.

at news.bbc.co.uk you'll find "How Sciece Caught Up With Killer", and "DNA Cathces Killer After 18 Years," both dated August 24th, 2001.

at www.bucksfreepress.co.uk is "DNA Linked Suspect to Barmaid's Death" dated August 17th 2001 (a few days before his sentencing)

and at www.solvethecrime.co.uk is "Scientific Expertise and DNA Database Combine to Catch Killer," also dated August 24th, 2001.

****************************

Undisputed facts of the case:

Jackie Poole (maiden name Jackie Hunt) was murdered on February 11th, 1983, in her apartment in Ruislip at the age of 25.

Jackie had a lover/boyfriend at the time: Anthony Ruark, then aged 23.

Ruark was immediately a prime suspect but could not be positively linked to the murder.

Prior to any meeting with the alleged psychic, Ruark "had already been interviewed as an acquaintance of the victim, he and his girlfriend having responded to an immediate police appeal. His subsequent arrest resulted from a lie in his witness statement that he was traveling by train at the critical time." (This is from the article that Batters wrote)

The investigation was closed down (not officially closed; unsolved murders are never closed in the UK) in 1984.

In 1998, the case was reopened. The Detective Chief Inspector gathered the original forensic items and sent them off to "the lab."

The Inspector also obtained DNA from Ruark whom he knew had been the prime suspect.

In 1999, the lab called the Inspector to say there was a match between Ruark's DNA and the semen found on Poole. Material found under Poole's fingernails was also found to match Ruark's DNA.

Ruark was convicted of the murder in 2001.

*************************************

Psychic Claims, as put forth by Tony Batters on behalf of Christine Holohan:

Within a few days of the murder, Batters and his partner were assigned to talk to Holohan, who had called the station and who also lived in Ruislip.

Holohan had been 'bothered' by psychic experiences since childhood.

Holohan claims in the "News of the World" article that "I lived in the area and had read about the murder in the papers. Then one night I woke up to find my bed shaking and the lights flickering. I thought: 'Oh my God!' then looked up and saw this blonde woman staring at me, tearing at my sheets in panic. Instantly I knew it was Jackie and she told me what had happened. Over the next few weeks she kept coming."

In Tony Batters' article (and remember, Tony is the one who actually spoke with her at the time), he says this: "She [Holohan] claimed she was repeatedly hearing the voice of a spirit who called herself 'Jackie Hunt'..." and "In a series of self-induced trances, the young woman gave us extraordinarily accurate details about the murder scene, as if she were reading my mind. I had been the first officer on the scene, where I remained for many hours. She described the scene just as I found it..."

First point: Note the SIGNIFICANT differences in method between the Batters article and the "News of the World" article. If Holohan were being visited by the victim and told what happened, then the "self-induced trances" are a sham. What is the purpose of a trance when the information is already known and needs only to be relayed?

Second point: The scene described in "News of the World" is a hypnogogic/hypnopompic hallucination to a T.

Third point: Batters admits that he knew the details of the murder scene prior to visiting Holohan. The interview is therefore "contaminated." If Holohan had written down all her observations without input from anyone having knowledge of the crime and forwarded them to a third party who then asked Batters to rate them, it would perhaps be impressive. Unfortunately, the manner in which this occurred leaves open the very real possibility that Batters was simply cold read by a Holohan who was either fraudulent or self-deluded.

And before you object that Batters' status as a cop would prevent any cold-reading, let me say that cops are as susceptible to this as anyone else, especially those with less experience. And remember: Batters was first on scene, hence, a beat cop, hence, lower rank and less experience.

I could go on, but there is nothing to indicate it is worth more effort.

[Garrette]

To explain Holohan’s reading of Batters, let’s ask some questions:

1. What did she specifically say?
Answer: All we have is this statement by Batters, “However, of some 130 points Christine made, more than 120 now seem to have proved absolutely correct. Others could never be confirmed or disproved.” But Batters does not list the 130 points; instead, he mentions only these:

a. Holohan used the victim’s “unpublished” maiden name of Hunt instead of the published married name. Could be impressive, I’ll grant that. Then again, I’d like to see the newspaper accounts that Holohan admits having read prior to meeting Batters. I’d also like to know how big Ruislip is/was. Holohan lived in Ruislip as did Poole/Hunt. Know what Poole’s occupation was? Barmaid. Think she meets lots of people as a barmaid? I do. Think she ever strikes up a conversation with some patrons? I do. Think it reasonably possible for Holohan to have met Poole before her murder and gotten information from her? I do.

b. Holohan “described the scene just as I found it.” Unfortunately, Batters does not go into details about what Holohan actually said or what he said. Unconfirmable.

c. “including the victim’s position, clothing and injuries.” I’d like to know what Holohan actually said and how well it could be matched to any assaulted strangulation victims. Why must we assume that Batters is not demonstrating Sitter’s Bias? Further, the murder was in the papers. Without access to the actual articles, it’s impossible to say what Holohan could have gotten from them. Quite a bit, I’d wager.

d. “In a step-by-step reconstruction of the crime, she relayed a series of events which seemed to match the evidence.” I find this the silliest of Batters’ statements. First, this is a very vague claim—“Seemed to match”? Did it match the DETERMINED sequence of events or not? Exactly what did Holohan say? Second, if she knew as much as Batters is indicating, I can guarantee the police would have looked at her as a suspect. Batters, by failing to acknowledge that this occurred, strongly implies that it did not, thus weakening his case.

e. “…we initially thought the incident had taken place in the lounge, but she insisted it started in the bathroom. There was an overturned rug there, and a towel-rail had been pulled from the wall, later confirmed to us as very recent damage.” Note that Batters does NOT say that Holohan gave him the info about the overturned rug or towel-rail; only that these facts could support her theory that it started in the bathroom, which, by the very important way, Batters does NOT say was ever concluded to be true, indicating that the police stuck with their original belief that it started in the lounge. Two strikes here for Holohan, with a big strike for Batters who here very clearly displays his bias in wanting Holohan to be right.

f. And all these, quickly listed:
-“The killer had left two of the many rings she always wore” (Nothing said about Holohan’s exact words)
-“…the victim had just made coffee.”
-“…the position of some crockery in the kitchen” (rather a standard guess would suffice here)
-“…a letter in the lounge” (Ditto)
-“…disarranged seat cushions” (The paper had indicated a struggle; easy guess)
-“…unread newspapers” (Oh my; but this one is just too amazing to explain, dontcha think?)
-“…she also knew that Jackie was undergoing a divorce” (barmaid, remember; and news articles, especially given that Ruark had already been named as prime suspect and lover)
-“…suffering from depression” (Barmaid talk and easy guess from divorce info)
-“…just been given a prescription by her doctor” (I’d have to think more to explain this; I’ll call it a hit)
-“…she had not intended to be at home on the evening that she died” (Need more info; especially how Batters/the police could determine this themselves, though I know it’s possible)
-“…felt unwell” (follows with depression)
-“…two men had called at her door on innocent business, just before the murder.” (Need more info, but I’d wager this was in the papers, even if the police didn’t disclose it. Reporters can be nosy and ask neighbors what they saw; you think one might have noticed the two men who called? I do.

g. Finally, the most important of the hits, at least Batters says it is: Holohan wrote the killer’s name: Pokie. Which, in fact, turned out to be Ruark’s nickname. Let’s see now. Victim is barmaid. Victim has illicit affair with killer. Killer is fairly well known young man. Victim lives and works in same town where psychic lives and works. Killer has already been named as prime suspect prior to psychic talking to police. Too many opportunities for Holohan to get information for me to call it psychic. Sorry.

2. Why were there ANY misses by Holohan? And there were. Batters lists Ickeham, Garden, and, most tellingly, the date of the crime. Holohan said Saturday, when in fact it occurred on Friday. Interesting point here, in the form of a contradiction. I’ll quote Batters: “Jackie’s body was found on the Sunday, the day Christine claimed her ‘messages’ started.” Now, if you’ll go back to my first post and the quote from Holohan who says that she recognized the apparition as Jackie because she had read about the murder in the papers, you’ll see the problem. Sequence: Body is found on Sunday; Holohan is visited by Jackie on Sunday; articles appear on a day after Sunday; Holohan claims she read the papers before she was visited by Jackie. If you need more proof than this that it’s a fabrication, then I can’t help you.


To finish it up, let me just state that this is an obviously transparent fraud. Holohan presents contradictory stories and Batters presents nothing but indirect testimony with nothing verifiable. Beyond that, the case was solved separate from any input by Holohan.

[Garrette]

This case (Poole/Batty/Holohan) does nothing to advance the claims of psychics-helping-police for at least these reasons and possibly more:

1. The psychic's own story is fatally inconsistent and contradictory

2. Newspaper articles regarding the crime appeared prior to the psychic coming forward

3. The psychic (and Batty) have not shown that Holohan had no contact with the murder victim prior to the crime; in fact, it is not an ureasonable stretch to believe that the victim, having lived in the same town as the victim, met and spoke with her and/or her acquaintances on at least one occasion; after all, the victim was a barmaid.

4. Batty gives no specifics about Holohan's 'hits' except for the murderer's nickname "Pokie" which could reasonably have been known by the psychic prior to the case.

5. The things that Batty does list as 'hits' are either too general/vague or are not presented with enough information to evaluate.

-----

1. Holohan did not solve the crime

2. Holohan did not help solve the crime

3. Holohan presented no information that the police did not already have

4. Holohan presented no information that led police to a new suspect

The proof is in Batty's own article when he explains that Ruark (the murderer) was already a suspect and had already been arrested prior to Holohan's appearance. They simply did not have the physical evidence to convict him.

Then read the other articles: The investigation was re-opened because DNA testing came to the fore and the new investigator pushed for it after the family hounded him. No psychic, not even Holohan, came forward in 1998 with information. The same evidence that was already there was merely submitted for DNA testing. Voila! Link to the same suspect the police had before Holohan showed up and Double Voila! a conviction.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't Batty print his article in 1984 or 1985 when the investigation was closed? Why didn't Holohan mount a campaign to convict Ruark then? Why didn't either one of them--BEFORE the DNA testing--write an article about how Holohan had described the murder scene and all those details and named the murderer?

Because she didn't do it.

She's a fraud. Whether she is aware of it or delusional, she is a fraud. Batty is either a willing fraudster or a dupe.

I usually refrain from such specific conclusions, but this one is obvious. I haven't shown that psychics NEVER help the police, but if you cannot see that this case is utterly and completely without merit, then we will never see eye to eye.

[RonSceptic]

Oh well. It could be worse. They could have had Keith Chambers on the case.

Another case where face value anecdotal accounts looked suggestive, but for which the pyschic explanation falls away under the scrutiny of a little proper investigation. To quote Jimi Hendrix, "Castles made of sand fall into the sea, eventually."

The tough reality for the believer to swallow here is that, if meduimship is a real phenomenon, there should be countless clear examples of pyschics solving murder cases. After all, scores of the dead aparrently queque up to pass on title-tatle about rings, feathers, furniture and so forth to John Edward et al.

Surely some murder victim would come forward and tell us who killed them?What could be more important to the relatives of a murder victim?

If not why not?

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It's the usual crapola from Steve and his cronies. Rumors, allegations, anecdotes, hyped-up claims...it never amounts to anything else than self-aggrandizement.

I find it tiresome but amusing the way these things ( another recent one was the ' Pam Renyolds ' case ) are thrown out as ' amazing proof ' of some sort of psi event, only to quickly fizzle in light of the facts.


You would think that the psibots, particularly the more intelligent ones like Steve, might consider the inevitability
of these results, before making fools of themselves.

I sometimes wonder if Steve is actually having a little fun at the expense of some of our more diligent skeptics, by inducing them to waste a lot of their time, going over the same old crap, time and again.


I realize I am stating the obvious by observing that " The best they can field is obviously nothing at all .. " But it makes you wonder who the winner, if there is one, actually is..

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I sometimes wonder if Steve is actually having a little fun at the expense of some of our more diligent skeptics, by inducing them to waste a lot of their time, going over the same old crap, time and again.


I realize I am stating the obvious by observing that " The best they can field is obviously nothing at all .. " But it makes you wonder who the winner, if there is one, actually is..

I wonder if, on the 'some mud always sticks' principal, this stuff is touted relentlessly by Luci and others in the hope that now and then some of their message might just get through to the unwary.

It's all part of the background noise that leads many people to think' there must be something to it'.

[CFLarsen]

Diogenes,

I don't think that Steve is having fun. I am convinced that he is struggling very hard to come up with something - anything - that will prove his beliefs.

Even if he is, well...how can one be made a fool of, if one finds the truth? :)

It may be tiresome, but that's the way it has to be, apparently.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Diogenes,

I don't think that Steve is having fun. I am convinced that he is struggling very hard to come up with something - anything - that will prove his beliefs.

Even if he is, well...how can one be made a fool of, if one finds the truth? :)

It may be tiresome, but that's the way it has to be, apparently.

I understand where you are coming from, but if you rule out my " having fun ' hypothesis, you have to consider that there is an incredible amount of self denial going on here..

Another hypothesis would be a sort of ' Groundhog Day ' scenario, where Steve wakes up every morning thinking :

" Yes! Today is the day, when the other side has been lobotomized during the night .. "

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I understand where you are coming from, but if you rule out my " having fun ' hypothesis, you have to consider that there is an incredible amount of self denial going on here..

Reading this forum, it cannot possibly come as a surprise to you. Do I need to mention the names of some of the believers, or the arguments they have made? :)

Originally posted by Diogenes
Another hypothesis would be a sort of ' Groundhog Day ' scenario, where Steve wakes up every morning thinking :

" Yes! Today is the day, when the other side has been lobotomized during the night .. "

Nice analogy. That is less likely, but nevertheless not impossible... ;)

[Ed]

Steve,

I have to ask. Do you really believe in this stuff (pick any paranormal thing, let's not get hung up in semantics)?

You seem reasonably bright so you must surely see the reality of the paranormal. That is to say that it tends to not hold up under scrutany. Does not failure after failure whisper in your ear that the area may be bogus and the people that you seem to get some satisfaction in dealing with might be frauds?

Be honest, had you not had an appaling loss, if your rational compass was what it was prior to that event, would you not be railing against charlatens?

Personally, if I might be allowed a personal observation, it seems to me that you are engaging more in wishful thinking than suffering under a delusion, as some here do.

What gives? Do you mind explaining?

[Lurker]

Worry not! Steve will be absent for some time and will not address any of the concerns brought up here.

But with time, he will regale us with another case where a psychic was "instrumental" in solving.

I used to be really interested in this sort of stuff. After debating for some time I note that the believers always seem to get their info from psychic-friendly sites while I tried to find corroboration at neutral sites. Most believers did not care that their source was extremely biased. Or they would clam up when evidence that questioned their original thesis was presented.

Lurker

[Starrman]

The only issue is where the information came from – the dead woman or the minds of the policeman who discovered the body, the murderer himself and the woman’s family

Just so I am clear. The psychic came in and told the police 124 things they already knew. If the police found out all of this information beforehand, so could she. How on Earth does this leave the ONLY possible explanation paranormal. And once again, even if it is paranormal, it was utterly useless in this case.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You would think that the psibots, particularly the more intelligent ones like Steve, might consider the inevitability
of these results, before making fools of themselves.

I sometimes wonder if Steve is actually having a little fun at the expense of some of our more diligent skeptics, by inducing them to waste a lot of their time, going over the same old crap, time and again.

I had never heard of the Poole case until now and I appreciate all the information provided by Steve, Stumpy and Garrette and others...

Now, in case I run into someone who sites this example as strong evidence of a pyschic phenomenon, I have some background.

Thanks again - it was definitely not a waste of time!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dingler44
Thanks again - it was definitely not a waste of time!

All in a day's work for.......Captain Skeptic!!! (whooooooosh!)

;)

[RonSceptic]

Hats off to Stumpy for delving into the true facts of the case. As with many paranormal 'evidence' soemone really has to do the leg work to get to the truth.

Great Job Stumpy.:cool:

[Stumpy]

Thanks Ron, but in fairness, Tony Youens did the vast majority of research into this. I was able to help because my work allows my easier access to people like DCI McKinlay.

One troubling aspect is that whole issue has been brought up due to the impending publication of an investigation by Playfair and Keen in the JSPR. Tony and I considered witholding our information until that story had been published or in a future edition of "The Skeptic". However Steve Grenard had been incontact with Montague Keen and asked us if we would publish the report in advance of this so that the issue could be open to critical review. We have acceded to that request, it is disappointing to note therefore that Steve Grenard and/or Keen have failed to respond. I hope that our willingness to be open about this matter is not being exploited. It would be most regrettable if the contents of our report were used to polish the as yet unpublished article for JSPR. It will be interesting to see if the article is published and if it now contains any of the mistakes in the Playfair & Keen investigation previously asserted on this message board, now corrected by Tony Youens and I.

Stumpy

[Quasi]

My problem here is that the crime ocurred in 1983, so a lot of information is out there regarding the crime. Second, cold reading, the technique she used when interviewing the police about the crime recently would uncover a lot of information because of the nature of cold reading. If there was a transcript or recording of the police/medium conversations it would be very helpful. If the police were naive about cold reading, she could make vague guesses, and the police would blurt out the accurate answer just like on the John Edwards show. Nothing interesting here, at least not until we see all the evidence.

[SteveGrenard]

Dear Stumpy:

We are sorry you were dissapointed that Keen or myself did not respond immediately. Keen has written to me this afternoon that he has been away since Sunday at a conference and only just returned. He wrote to me that he intends to respond "in due course" as soon as he gets his hat off so to speak.

In any case, I wish to respond that the remark attributed to Keen that he had spoken to everybody who was involved was my remark, not Keen's. I considered Batters, who made the report, and published it in the Police Magazine, as the principal person involved. He interview Holohan did he not? He took down her report did he not? Also, and now I see you decided to make the other police officer with Batters anonymous (so I won't mention his name until I find out why you did this), the investigators spoke with him as well.

The other reason I did not respond immediately was an object lesson in the propagation of ad hominem remarks against myself personally, the allegations repeated by certain people who you can freely see for yourself above stating I am "a believer." It should be carefully noted that belief was never mentioned in any of my posts on this matter. I knew the report in the Police Magazine existed, I knew that Playfair and Keen have investigated it and I later became aware of Tony Youens and then your own interest in the matter and felt it would be a useful exercise to publish here as well as to widen the debate. I am truly sorry it elicited the usual round of hyperbole from the loudmouths here but I guess I have come to accept little else from them. They are all on permanent ignore by the way as of now, one of them was before. They have nothing to contribute beyond this. I thank dingler44 for seeing through the reasons this subject was posted here.

So as part of that object lesson we first had a few parries from critical thinkers here who doubted that the murder ever took place, then when we proved it did, we had a few more jabs that the interview with the medium never took place, and then we finally had your report which caused both of these fractions to shut up. Your report, well, that of Youens and yourself, as indicated above will be responded to as indicated above. Please have patience. Thank you. It is also interesting to note that the tactic in the Youens website piece was to minimize the role of Batters, not mention the name of his corroborator and finally relegate him to a desk job...er what was the term? oh yes, administrative duties on the case, and then, of course, to point out that even cops can be fooled by mediums. Indeed they can.

We will wait and see how Playfair and Keen respond to this. Also we were hoping that their study would be published in Jan 04 issue of the JSPR but it may have to wait til spring as both the fall and winter issues were, I learned, filled up prior to this submission with other studies in the que. The entire set of JSPRS are the subject of an ongoing on-line project so at some point I am sure that this study and much more will become available on line as well ............ as somebody above had asked about.

As an aside:

BTW have you noticed how many Tony's are involved in this issue?
We should do a statistical study of that given the fact that are all British and dont even have Italian last names save for one: my favorite TV detective character of late named Adrian Monk! Guess who plays the character? Tony Chalhoub.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am truly sorry it elicited the usual round of hyperbole from the loudmouths hetre but I guess I have come to accept little else from them.

Steve, how can you know about the "loudmouths" if you have them on ignore?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
They have nothing to contribute beyond this.

I see. Ignore the rational explanations, then. Business as usual.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So as part of that object lesson we first had a few parries from critical thinkers here who doubted that the murder ever took place, then when we proved it did,

Huh? Who claimed the murder never took place?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
We will wait and see how Playfair and Keen respond to this.

We shall, indeed. In the meantime, what is your stance on this? Has any of this made the slightest impact on you?

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve, thanks for the reply.

In any case, I wish to respond that the remark attributed to Keen that he had spoken to everybody who was involved was my remark, not Keen's. I considered Batters, who made the report, and published it in the Police Magazine, as the principal person involved

I note that the orginal assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" has now been modified to "principal person involved". In any event it was Keen who repeated the assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case. This is a very basic error (there are a number of others), if Keen's investigation cannot establish the most basic facts correctly how can it reasonably be relied on. It is very loyal and noble of you to now try and accept the blame for Keen's error but I don't think it is appropriate. A review of the original thread on here demonstrates that Keen repeated the assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case.

. He interview Holohan did he not? He took down her report did he not?

Are you absolutely certain about this?

It is also interesting to note that the tactic in the Youens website piece was to minimize the role of Batters, not mention the name of his corroborator and finally relegate him to a desk job...er what was the term?

This, I think, is slightly unfair. We have reported the role of Constable Batters accurately. It wouldn't have been an issue if Keen had researched and reported his role accurately in the first place. Now, either Batters or Keen have vastly inflated the role of the officer to give the story a bit more credibility - who is responsible for this glaring error?

...and then, of course, to point out that even cops can be fooled by mediums. Indeed they can.

Do you then conceed that this is a possible explanation in respect of Holohan and Batters?

You have kindly responded to two of the many factual errors I highlighted when I posted the link to Tony Youens report. Have you a view on the other points that I raised?

best wishes

Stumpy

[Stumpy]

Forgive me, Steve I failed to address one of your points. Tony Youens kept the full name of the other detective involved anonymous because Tony Batters did in his original article in the Police Federation article.

Stumpy

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy: I note that the orginal assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" has now been modified to "principal person involved". In any event it was Keen who repeated the assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case. This is a very basic error (there are a number of others), if Keen's investigation cannot establish the most basic facts correctly how can it reasonably be relied on. It is very loyal and noble of you to now try and accept the blame for Keen's error but I don't think it is appropriate. A review of the original thread on here demonstrates that Keen repeated the assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case.


SG reply: We are now arguing a minor point that is not germane to the issue: Batters, as the person who wrote in the Police Federation article and subsequently confirmed, was the principal person, detective or constable or whatever you want to call him insofar, as the taking down of Holohan's report ... he, and of course, the other officer whose name is not given and which I will not disclose because you have not done so.



Stumpy: Are you absolutely certain about this?

SG: I base my remarks on his authorship of the article. Don't tell me Batters did not "write it down" but office X did... again, splitting hairs. Two officers interviewed Holohan. We both know that.

Stumpy: This, I think, is slightly unfair. We have reported the role of Constable Batters accurately. It wouldn't have been an issue if Keen had researched and reported his role accurately in the first place. Now, either Batters or Keen have vastly inflated the role of the officer to give the story a bit more credibility - who is responsible for this glaring error?

SG: Again, tell me how this "glaring error" impacts on the basic thesis of the claim made by Holohan, and, in fact, Batters in his article? If the best you can do is to split hairs, so be it. But then it seems this is the best you can do. I need more than that. I need proof that Holohan was somehow normally made aware of the 120 to 130 points of information she provided which were deemed correct by Batters and Officer X as presented in Batters' article in the PolFed magazine article.

The response of minimizing, trivializing, marginalizing and finally demonizing is a time worn one. We see it on this board, as practiced by certain parties, all the time. It is so shop worn it doesn't work anymore. Critical thinkers see past this tactic and need more information to base a decision on.



Stumpy: Do you then concede that this is a possible explanation in respect of Holohan and Batters?

SG: See above. Marginalizing Batters as TY & yourself have attempted to do does not provide an explanation. Its the appealing to authority argument in reverse where Batters is concerned and it is the appealing to authority argument in forward where McKinlay and Lundy are concerned. Neither McKinlay or Lundy interviewed Holohan but obviously took a pass
on her information. This is completely understandble considering the character of that information so they cannot be held responsible for doing that. But that doesn't change the facts
as they subsequently became known.

Stumpy: You have kindly responded to two of the many factual errors I highlighted when I posted the link to Tony Youens report. Have you a view on the other points that I raised?

SG: Keen will respond to those iems which he chooses to refute. Thank you for responding to my response. Until next time..........
(over which I have no control)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In any event it was Keen who repeated the assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case. This is a very basic error (there are a number of others), if Keen's investigation cannot establish the most basic facts correctly how can it reasonably be relied on.

Is it possible for us to know if Batters testified in court ?

I read the article again and he doesn't mention that it was him who testified in the trial.

If he didn't testify, his role in the case wasn't important.

Simple things.

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

We are now arguing a minor point that is not germane to the issue:

I don't agree that an investigation that is riddled with basic errors can be relied on, especially where that report is trying to validate an extraordinary claim. Fundamental errors in the investagative stage are acceptable as long as the "right" outcome is achieved? I don't hink so. In any event we are not arging the point, it is being evaded. It was repeatedly asserted that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case. Who is responsible for this error, Keen or Batters?

Don't tell me Batters did not "write it down" but office X did... again, splitting hairs. Two officers interviewed Holohan. We both know that.

Who wrote what, but more particularly WHEN is not splitting hairs. What if Batter's notes weren't written during the interview but sometime later? Would you agree that in that case the "origianl notes" simply couldn't be regarded as reliable?

Again, tell me how this "glaring error" impacts on the basic thesis of the claim made by Holohan, and, in fact, Batters in his article?

There are a whole series of glaring errors, not just one. If the basic claim, that this was a paranormal event is to be rebutted, then it puts an onus on us to show that there is some form of error or fraud at work. Even at this early stage we are highlighting the errors, you now claim that errors are irrelevant!

I need proof that Holohan was somehow normally made aware of the 120 to 130 points of information she provided which were deemed correct by Batters and Officer X as presented in Batters' article in the PolFed magazine article.

Would you agree that IF the notes outlining these 120 to 130 points were made not at the time of the interview but sometime later then they cannot be deemed to be a reliable account?

The response of minimizing, trivializing, marginalizing and finally demonizing is a time worn one.

Please explain where Tony Youens or I have done this? We have merely reported the facts accurately, by some mental gymnastics you seem to be suggesting that this is unfair! I could argue that the practice of exagerration, misinformation, blatant inaccuracy and pure error is a time worn one in respect of paranormal claims.

Stumpy: Do you then concede that this is a possible explanation in respect of Holohan and Batters?

SG: See above. Marginalizing Batters as TY & yourself have attempted to do does not provide an explanation. Its the appealing to authority argument in reverse where Batters is concerned and it is the appealing to authority argument in forward where McKinlay and Lundy are concerned. Neither McKinlay or Lundy interviewed Holohan but obviously took a pass

You have totally evaded the question here. Do you conceed that your very reasonable point that "even cops can be fooled by mediums" is a possibility in this case?

Neither McKinlay or Lundy interviewed Holohan but obviously took a pass

Are you certain about this?

But that doesn't change the facts

Are these the "facts" presented by Keen that are, in actuality, erroneous?

Stumpy: You have kindly responded to two of the many factual errors I highlighted when I posted the link to Tony Youens report. Have you a view on the other points that I raised?

SG: Keen will respond to those iems which he chooses to refute. Thank you for responding to my response. Until next time

This is evading the question again, I was asking for YOUR views not those of Keen.

regards

Stumpy

[Stumpy]

Hi Cleopatra

Our information is that Batters did not give evidence, he did not appear on the list of prosecution witnesses. Also in respect of the crucial notes allegedly taken by Batters and that Lundy allegedly failed to act upon; according to DCI McKinlay no such notes were submitted to the enquiry!

best wishes

Stumpy

[Garrette]

Steve,

In your recent posts you claim that Stumpy is (in my words) focusing on unimportant issues and not on the crucial parts of Batters' claims.

I disagree with this, but will leave that for Stumpy to argue.

Meantime, what issues of substance do you dispute? One of these, perhaps?

1) Ruark was the prime suspect and had been arrested prior to Holohan contacting the police.

2) Holohan gave no information to the police that was not already known.

3) Ruark was convicted because of the advance of technology and the persistence of the victim's family in pushing the police to keep trying.

4) The 120 specific statements are not, in fact, specific.

5) Holohan said she was first visited by the victim's spirit on the Sunday after the murders but also said it was after she had read newspaper accounts of the murder. This is impossible as Jackie's (the victim's) body was not found until Sunday, hence the first article did not appear until later.

6) Holohan said she was shown by Jackie's spirit all the specifics of the crime scene, meaning she knew--before she spoke to the police--everything there was to know. Yet Holohan had to go into a "trance" in Batters' presence to bring the information forth. Why?

7) Holohan gave significantly incorrect information along. (Saturday as the day of the murder as opposed to Friday; Ickeham; garden.)


Do you consider these items central to Batters' claim?

Do you dispute them?

[RonSceptic]

Isn't it odd that the 'principal person involved' in the investigation gave no evidence in court.:id:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Holohan has never repeated this success either before or after Mrs. Poole’s murder.


Tony Youens
Derbyshire

"Christina has been back in Ireland for the last 15 years and continues to work in Portlaoise as a very successful medium/psychic. "

http://archives.tcm.ie/carlownationalist/2001/09/17/story109.asp

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"Christina has been back in Ireland for the last 15 years and continues to work in Portlaoise as a very successful medium/psychic. "

http://archives.tcm.ie/carlownationalist/2001/09/17/story109.asp

Anecdotal.

Have any scientific evidence to submit Luci, or just more stories?

I thought you were a skeptic? How can you be a skeptic and know absolutely nothing about science?

[Cleopatra]

Stumpy

What sort of magazine is "The Police"?

Are they aware of the fact that the material they post is... controversial?

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Stumpy

What sort of magazine is "The Police"?

Are they aware of the fact that the material they post is... controversial?

"Police" magazine is published by The Police Federation which is the "trade union" (except we're not allowed a trade union) for officers from Constable up to Chief Inspector. All such officers belong to it - there are historical reasons for this.

The Federation is obviously mainly concerned about pay and conditions. It does not have any particular academic status although it does sometimes commission surveys and research.

The Police Federation does, of course, have a website. (http://www.polfed.org/main_frame.htm) with links to Police magazine including back issues.

[Cleopatra]

Thanks Dragon


I understand that such a magazine cannot be academic but I think that phrases like this one

This story concerns one extraordinary aspect a out the case which could not e disclosed to the jury

should not be printed in a police magazine. What so ever. Why don't you e-mail them this thread ? :)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Garrette
To explain Holohan’s reading of Batters, let’s ask some questions:

1. What did she specifically say?
Answer: All we have is this statement by Batters, “However, of some 130 points Christine made, more than 120 now seem to have proved absolutely correct. Others could never be confirmed or disproved.” But Batters does not list the 130 points; instead, he mentions only these:

a. [snip]



A very well done series of posts, Garrette!

[SteveGrenard]

It is not at all revealing or significant that Batters did not eventually testify in Ruark's trial 18 years after the fact. Why should he? The mediumistic evidence he took down was not admissible in court when he first obtained it nor was it 18 years later. There was nothing Batters could offer the court in this case. The suspect, already in prison for another offense, was convicted on the basis of newly available DNA technology. This has been stated repeatedly from post 1 for those who missed it.

It has also been stated that with respect to the matter of the mediumnistic evidence which is now being debated Batters, however, was, is and along with his unnamed partner, remains the principal investigator involved with this aspect of the case. He is also is the author of the PolFed article like it or not as
some say here and above. In an effort to discredit his role in this part of the case, the only part of the case which we happen to be debating, Tony Yuens and Detective Stumpy want to trivliaize and marginalize Batters' role in the overall case as a means to discredit him.

So yes Stumpy, this is a time worn tactic. We need better evidence than this. I have not read any exaggerated claims on this case to make your opposite position valid. Only a recitation of the facts, all of which are published elsewhere and which everyone here has had a chance to read whether or not they read them or not.

The what ifs and anything is possible and the fact that cops as well as anybody can be fooled by a fraudulent medium are well and good but given the specifics presented with respect to the medium's report, we need a further airing of the case. I agree with those who said we should have an accounting of the 120 or 130 points of information. I will have to ask if this will be made, when and where (e.g. in the final journal article?).

Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability? Or should we even mention this? I was just wondering if you came across this and would be able to or could share this. If not, I will not say more about it.

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

It is not at all revealing or significant that Batters did not eventually testify in Ruark's trial 18 years after the fact.

But it is revealing and significant that Keen falsely asserted this in his earlier communications! You now seem to be conceeding that he didn't give evidence in court and that the assertion that he was the principal detective involved in the case is also wrong. If Keen was merely reporting what Batters had told him then, put bluntly, Batters is not telling the truth. Would you agree that the truthfullness of Batters is a central issue. If the errors are a consequence of Keen's mis-reporting then this should be acknowledged so that the suspicion that Batters is not being honest is removed.

At no point have Tony Youens or I attempted to discredit Batters role in the case, we have merely reported his role accurately.

You wanted to peer-review the material to date, like it or not this is a two way process. This process will only work if we agree the areas of fact and highlight the errors that are present. If we focus on the staements made by Batters, Keen, Youens and I instead of making spurious and baseless allegations of discrediting contributors we will manage to part the wheat from the chaff more easily. The peer-review process which YOU requested and we have agreed to, means dealing with each issue on a point by point basis. Please feel free to take issue with any aspect of Tony Youens report that you wish, we will discuss everything that you raise. We only ask that you do the same in return. Please therefore address the previous points that I have raised with you as part of the process which YOU requested.

I was not aware of the RAF project that Holohan was involved in. Where did this information come from, was it Holohan by any chance? This is a win-win situation for her, doubless I will email the MOD for confirmation of this, doubtless, if they wish to reply, they will deny any such project taking place, doubtless this will be re-joined by the predicable "well they would say that wouldn't they" response of the believers.

regards

Stumpy

[Garrette]

Originally posted by lpecac
A very well done series of posts, Garrette!

Thank you. I'm blushin'. :o

[Garrette]

Steve,

any thoughts on the substance of Batters' claims as I listed previously?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It is not at all revealing or significant that Batters did not eventually testify in Ruark's trial 18 years after the fact. Why should he?

You are wrong. It's very revealing and significant the fact that he didn't testify in court.

Detectives who lead the investigation in a murder case always testify, the court needed the testimony of the leading detective but it wasn't Batters who was asked to testify.

The mediumistic evidence he took down was not admissible in court when he first obtained it nor was it 18 years later. There was nothing Batters could offer the court in this case. The suspect, already in prison for another offense, was convicted on the basis of newly available DNA technology. This has been stated repeatedly from post 1 for those who missed it.

I think that in this forum most of us are already persuaded that it was the DNA technology that helped the suspect's conviction. Batters doesn't seem to think so though. He suggests that if the ghost could testify the suspect would be behind bars 18 years before. If he was the leading dective he 'd knew that the "evidence" that the medium provided was already known to the officers that they were investigating the case.

So he either lied or he had no idea about the investigation.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



So he either lied or he had no idea about the investigation.

Batters was the OIC who investigated Ms H. Why are you ignoring this fact? :confused: It has nothing to do with Court evidence. Ms H was not used in Court as heresay is not admissable., whether it comes from the living, or the dead.

The issue here is the fact that Ms H provided corrobarative evidence which eventually nailed straight onto the perpetrator. Ms H is, was and still is a medium / psychic. There has been no refutation of this evidence short of accusations of criminal involvement, with no evidence, let alone proof.:rolleyes:

This has got to be one of the worst, if not most dishonest attempts at debunking I have ever seen as a skeptic.

[Cleopatra]

You must be joking, aren't you?

I didn't say anything of what you attribute to me above.

Read my posts better before jumping into idiotic remarks.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You must be joking, aren't you?

I didn't say anything of what you attribute to me above.

Read my posts better before jumping into idiotic remarks.

I think that's what Lucianarchy calls "psirony".... ;)

[Garrette]

Originally posted by LucianarchyBatters was the OIC who investigated Ms H. Why are you ignoring this fact?

If you really were "Pete" about a year ago on Tvtalkshows, then shame on you. You already know that this case is a pile of crap as far as supporting the claim that psychics help the police.

If you're not Pete, then my apologies, but you're still smart enough to know it's crap.

Do you have any idea what an "OIC" is? It's Officer in Charge. A police officer sent to interview a psychic, even if he is senior to the other officer there, is nat an OIC. Even if he is, then he's "OIC of an interview." The secretary is "OIC of the files."

I'll grant my law enforcement experience is limited to interactions (significant interactions) with US law enforcement agencies and none in the UK, so perhaps Stumpy will correct me, but I'll wager long odds you're misusing the term OIC.

The issue here is the fact that Ms H provided corrobarative evidence which eventually nailed straight onto the perpetrator.

No. The issue is that she claimed--through Batters--to do so. The truth is that she did nothing of the sort. The critical evidence was collected prior to and separate from her interview. The suspect--eventually convicted--had been arrested prior to her coming forward.



Ms H is, was and still is a medium / psychic.

No. She was and is still someone who claims to be a medium/psychic and who has nothing of substance to back up her claim.


There has been no refutation of this evidence short of accusations of criminal involvement, with no evidence, let alone proof.

Do you seriously believe this? If so, it does not speak well of your critical thinking abilities nor your reading comprehension.

I invite you to address the substantive posts I have listed for Steve.

This has got to be one of the worst, if not most dishonest attempts at debunking I have ever seen as a skeptic.

If you were a skeptic, I would take this statement seriously.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
This has got to be one of the worst, if not most dishonest attempts at debunking I have ever seen as a skeptic.

Really? And when did you become a sceptic?:rolleyes:

[juninho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Batters was the OIC who investigated Ms H. Why are you ignoring this fact? :confused: It has nothing to do with Court evidence. Ms H was not used in Court as heresay is not admissable., whether it comes from the living, or the dead.


So what if Batters was the OIC who investigated Ms H.

I'll give you a possible explanation:

The Investigating Office heading up the murder case of Jacqui Poole/Hunt recieves hundreds of leads. One of these "leads" comes from a crackpot ringing up to say that she is hearing voices telling her details of the murder case.

If you were the Investigating Officer who would you send to check out this crackpot;

1) You're best detectives or;
2) Some beat bobby.

Tricky one.

BTW, Lucianarchy, you have claimed to have plenty of experience in legal matters, ie worked in plenty of police stations up and down the country and with the home office yet you still refuse to answer;

1) In what capacity did you work within the home office and

2) In which building did you work.

Is your reticence in answering the questions a simple matter of secrecy. I can honestly believe that contract cleaners are forbidden to divulge such delicate issues as how many pineapple chunks they place in the urinals at Queen Anne's Gate?

Oh, damn, I have a prediction that if you now answer the questions you worked at QAG, right?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by juninho
Is your reticence in answering the questions a simple matter of secrecy. I can honestly believe that contract cleaners are forbidden to divulge such delicate issues as how many pineapple chunks they place in the urinals at Queen Anne's Gate?

Not to divert the discussion or anything, but....how do you know they taste of pineapple? :D

(Ever read "American Psycho"? Well...don't ever eat mint ice cream again...)

[Ed]

Originally posted by juninho



BTW, Lucianarchy, you have claimed to have plenty of experience in legal matters, ie worked in plenty of police stations up and down the country and with the home office yet you still refuse to answer;

1) In what capacity did you work within the home office and

2) In which building did you work.

Is your reticence in answering the questions a simple matter of secrecy. I can honestly believe that contract cleaners are forbidden to divulge such delicate issues as how many pineapple chunks they place in the urinals at Queen Anne's Gate?

Oh, damn, I have a prediction that if you now answer the questions you worked at QAG, right?

Poor boy, you must be new. Lucidoes not answer, it simply asserts. It never engages. It does research. It works for the cops. Yup.

Claus...the questions.:roll:

[Stumpy]

Batters was the OIC who investigated Ms H. Why are you ignoring this fact

There still seems to be some confusion over the role and title of Batters, it is worrysome that there seems to be a concerted effort to buff up his role.
OIC = Officer in Case or Officer In Charge, within UK LawEnforcement. This is applied to a single officer working a particular enquiry e.g series of linked burglaries, a robbery etc. On a major enquiry the lead officer is referred to as SIO, Senior Investigatin Officer. I have worked many major enquiries the term "OIC" has never been applied to specific components of an investigation. Generally, because officers are paired up so that any evidence can be corroborated the components of an enquiry team are referred to as "crews" e.g interview crew, house-to-house crew etc. Understand that Batters was not trained to interview witnesses to the level of a detective. The detective constable with Batters would therefore have had primacy in any interview with a witness. The fact that Batters may have done all the talking does not elevate his status above the detectives.

In any event M.Keen did not use the term OIC, on the original thread he posted the following via Steve Grenard at 10.59am 7-3-03
Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark.

Batters was not either principal or detective, he did not recover any pullover. I challenged the assertion that Batters was the principal detective.

At 4.15pm on 07-03-03 I sought to clear this up, I posted
I am dubious of your assertion that the researchers to whom you refer "carefully studied" the case. Are they maintaining that Tony Batters was the principal detective in the case?

One of the researchers in the case (M.KEEN) replied via Grenard at 02.20 am on 07-04-02
Tony Batters was the principal detective involved. He was part of Lundy's team. Batters forced entry into the flat and found the body, spent five hours there, making elaborate notes, and was a principal witness at the eventual trial. I used the expression "principal detective involved" in the sense in which would commonly be understood

Again the basic error is re-iterated along with another basic error - Batters was not a pricipal witness at trial, he was not even a witness.

Once again this issue comes down to who is "mistaken", Keen or Batters? Once we can clear this up we can move towards the more interesting topic of "did Holohan give the info alleged and if so, how?"

Stumpy

[CFLarsen]

EddieSpaghetti,

Glad to: "Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

Stumpy,

You have got to write this up for an article on SkepticReport! I insist! I will summon the skeptical hordes and petition outside your house, until you oblige!

........right, gang? :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
EddieSpaghetti,

Glad to: "Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

Stumpy,

You have got to write this up for an article on SkepticReport! I insist! I will summon the skeptical hordes and petition outside your house, until you oblige!

........right, gang? :D

Thank you. Once again, Claus, you show the deep sensitivity of your Viking ancestors by bringing up an oh so happy soubriquet bestsowed upon me in primary school:D

Anyhoo, from a credibility/reporting standpoint, is it not relevant that the actual title and function of Batters (Copper at a beating death; Batters ...Hmmmmm) cannot be resolved? If Keen is wrong it shows that he had no idea who he was talking to.

[juninho]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not to divert the discussion or anything, but....how do you know they taste of pineapple? :D

(Ever read "American Psycho"? Well...don't ever eat mint ice cream again...)

I defered tasting to "troughman" of Sydney's Mardi Gras fame. Read Here - not pleasant (http://www.q.co.za/regulars/cohen/991202-troughman.htm)

And, NO, I wasn't there.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Garrette


I invite you to address the substantive posts I have listed for Steve.



Your "posts", are nothing other than supposition, wishfull thinking or your own opinion. You provide nothing which supports your suppositions. Forgive me, but this is a forum for critical thinkers not wishfull thinkers. All you can do is claim that Ms H is dishonest or criminally involved, like JREF's resident Ms Cleo did. She is neither, and there is no evidence to even suggest that she is.

Perhaps we should ask Officer Stumpy top clear this up:

Stumpy, do you believe that Ms H has been dishonest or is criminally involved in the case being discussed? Yes or No. If yes, please provide your evidence to your colleagues as a matter of urgency.

If no, then please cease and desist with the collusion of any action which may misalign Ms H's positive and public spirited intention of coming forward to help in a poilice enquirey.

This woman should be thanked. It is quite disgusting to see the unfounded accusations and attempts to denigrate her in this forum. There is no evidence for such accusations. All it does is reinforce the corrupt nature of pseudo-skepticism and the zeal of the 'True Unbeliever'.

Let's hope other psychics and mediums are not put off by the tactics displayed here and continue to come forward to help the police.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Read my posts better before jumping into idiotic remarks.

I agree that your posts are "idiotic", but I have read them quite well. Your claim that "So he either lied or he had no idea about the investigation " has no evidence behind it what so ever.

It is also irrelevant whether Batters or Ms H were used in Court. No one is claiming that they were, or even should be, so I suggest you are the one who would do better to read the subject matter before writing any more of your silly "idiotic" remarks.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy






Let's hope other psychics and mediums are not put off by the tactics displayed here and continue to come forward to help the police.

We're still waiting for an example of where they have..

But I'm sure you know this...;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

All you can do is claim that Ms H is dishonest or criminally involved, like JREF's resident Ms Cleo did.


Hmmmm.... you lie again. Quelle surprize!!

One more time: During the trial for the Murder of Jacqueline Pool, the court asked for the testimony of the officer who lead the original investigation.

The officer who leaded the investigation testified indeed :

Tony Lunby, who led the original inquiry, flew from his retirement home in Spain for the trial. After seeing the only murder case he failed to solve concluded at last, he said he was pleased for Mrs Poole's family.
With the compliments of Steve Grenard (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/25/ndna25.xml)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Stumpy,

You have got to write this up for an article on SkepticReport! I insist! I will summon the skeptical hordes and petition outside your house, until you oblige!



I second that and I insist that the "The Police" magazine must be informed about the woo-woo articles that publishes.

[juninho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Your "posts", are nothing other than supposition, wishfull thinking or your own opinion. You provide nothing which supports your suppositions. Forgive me, but this is a forum for critical thinkers not wishfull thinkers.

How psironic :D

OK, please allow me to make a critique of your time in the Home Office - I am still waiting for the answers. PM me if you like.

Silence speaks a thousand words or should that be - I think the data speaks for itself.

Go back to cleaning toilets. I know it's a supposition but you won't furnish me with any information.

[Stumpy]

Stumpy, do you believe that Ms H has been dishonest or is criminally involved in the case being discussed? Yes or No.

Lucianarchy, you continually avoid any direct questions put to you, or comment on any reasonable points made. You continually fail to engage in any reasoned exchange of views. Avoidance, obfuscation, evasion seem to be your stock in trade. Do not DEMAND any answers from me until you have demonstrated that you are able to maturely enter into a reasonable discussion. It should be noted that I have answered point by point anything raised by you or Steve Grenard in this and the previous thread. In return all I get is evasion and ad hominen attacks. Taking a puffed up, haughty attitude isn't the best way to ellicit a response is it? For all your alleged time in the Home Office you learnt nothing about communication skills did you? Mr Keen has apparently made inaccurate statements on this board in pursuit of "proving" his assertion. Perhaps it would be more productive if you could apply some of your scepticism and critical thinking to this connundrum.

When you have answered the numerous questions put to you, as yet unanswered, I will provide a full answer to you in relation to your question above. The article on Tony Youens web-site is comprehensive and self-explanatory, we have made no allegation or even obliquely suggested that either Holohan or Batters has acted dishonestly or criminally. The implication that we have done either is beneath contempt.

Stumpy

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy

we have made no allegation or even obliquely suggested that either Holohan or Batters has acted dishonestly or criminally.

Stumpy

Good. Perhaps some of the other pseudo-skeptics will fall in line.

Now, the following supposition, which is the only rational explanatory candidate put forward, is without any merit or evidence to support it being so:

"Suppose someone strongly suspected or perhaps even knew that Ruark was the murderer and wanted to get this information to the police without being traced back (possibly worried about retribution?). They could have passed this information on to a local medium who could then obligingly tell the police. "

I believe that misaligns Ms H as being dishonest. She is a woman of honesty and integrity and there is no rational reason for her to behave in the way supposed.

I have read your posts, Stumpy, the points you have raised are onlysuppositions. As I have said, this is a forum for critical thinking, not wishfull.

There has yet to be a mundan, rational, evidenced candidate to explain how Ms Holohan provided the information to the police. All I see is hair-splitting over 'titles', straw men (court evidence, testimony) or unsupported supposition (see above by Youens).

[lofgoernost]

Posted by Lucianarchy
It is also irrelevant whether Batters or Ms H were used in Court. No one is claiming that they were, or even should be, so I suggest you are the one who would do better to read the subject matter before writing any more of your silly "idiotic" remarks.

You must've missed this post by Stumpy:


One of the researchers in the case (M.KEEN) replied via Grenard at 02.20 am on 07-04-02

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Batters was the principal detective involved. He was part of Lundy's team. Batters forced entry into the flat and found the body, spent five hours there, making elaborate notes, and was a principal witness at the eventual trial. I used the expression "principal detective involved" in the sense in which would commonly be understood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again the basic error is re-iterated along with another basic error - Batters was not a pricipal witness at trial, he was not even a witness.

*************

Stumpy has been trying to get at the root of these inaccuracies in Keen's reporting. I see it as a worthwhile endeavor.

[Stumpy]

Lucianarchy wrote:

All I see is hair-splitting over 'titles', straw men (court evidence, testimony) or unsupported supposition (see above by Youens).

That's because that's all you WANT to see. If you are unable to see that there is some deceit (intentional or otherwise) by either Keen or Batters then I really can't help you anymore. That is giving a straight answer to a straight question. Now please try applying that technique to the numerous questions asked of you.

Irregardless of your crude analysis regarding this case there is perhaps a more transparent way of resolving this. The Batters/Keen/Lucianarchy case seems to be: Eileen Holohan is a genuine psychic, she succesfully domonstrated this ability during an interview with Tony Batters 20 years ago.
According to Lucianarchy's link, Holohan has continued her career as a "succesful medium".
Now, according to Steve Grenard she has previously assisted the RAF with a project involving her psychic abilities.
Clearly she is not adverse to having her abilities tested in a controlled environment. Therefore she should have no objection to taking the Randi challenge.

Stumpy

[Stumpy]

Lucianarchy wrote:

I have read your posts, Stumpy, the points you have raised are onlysuppositions

Then you haven't read the posts then!

In an earlier post I raised the following points which are NOT supposition, they are accurate and worthy of addressing:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Emphatically incorrect. Tony Batters was NOT the principal detective involved, in fact, he WAS NOT EVEN A DETECTIVE!!! Batters was a beat officer who was first to attend the scene, he was retained on the enquiry to perform administrative tasks on the enquiry. Now Keen's repeated assertions to the contrary on have two explanations, either Batters is lying about his role OR Keen has made an assumption that turned out to be hopelessly wide of the mark, which is it?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case was indpendently investigated by Keen and Playfair and they talked to everyone involved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Incorrect, Batters had only an office based admin role in this case the people intimately involved in this investigation were Det Supt Lundy and Det Chief Inspecter McKinlay, neither of whom were spoken to by Playfair and Keen but have been spoken to by Tony Youens and I.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The official record appears in the public files and court records or so I am advised and these have been reviewed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The records reffered to above have not been officially released by the Metropolitan Police for ANY review. How then did Playfair and Keen come by them?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The psychic's account appeared in a police officer's dated notes, are part of the evidence in the case at the time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No record of the alleged interview with Holohan was submitted to the enquiry by any Police Officer.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and (Batters) was a principal witness at the eventual trial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No he wasn't! He did not give evidence, he wasn't called as part of the prosecution evidence. He did turn up in his own time and observed the proceedings.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the very preliminary stage of the inquiry when Batters and Smith were interviewing Holohan, Ruark was not a prime suspect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



See Tony Youens article. Ruark was the Prime suspect before Holohan was allegedly interviewed - this was widely known in the area.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conviction was based on DNA found on stowed evidence, a sweater and other samples from he deceased
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DCI McKinlay who lead the re-opened case and has all the facts states that he has no knowledge of the sweater. The ONLY DNA evidence submitted in evidence was that taken from the body of the deceased.

Stumpy

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy


If you are unable to see that there is some deceit (intentional or otherwise) by either Keen or Batters then I really can't help you anymore.



There is no deciept by Keen, Batters or Ms H. Only supposition of such, yet there is not even any evidence to make that suppositiion. Indeed you have said that:

"we have made no allegation or even obliquely suggested that either Holohan or Batters has acted dishonestly or criminally."

Now you are telling me there is a deceit to "see". Show me. Foirget the supposition. Where is there deceipt?



Irregardless of your crude analysis regarding this case there is perhaps a more transparent way of resolving this. The Batters/Keen/Lucianarchy case seems to be: Eileen Holohan is a genuine psychic, she succesfully domonstrated this ability during an interview with Tony Batters 20 years ago.
According to Lucianarchy's link, Holohan has continued her career as a "succesful medium".
Now, according to Steve Grenard she has previously assisted the RAF with a project involving her psychic abilities.
Clearly she is not adverse to having her abilities tested in a controlled environment. Therefore she should have no objection to taking the Randi challenge.

Stumpy

It is not a scientific test. It is a challenge, biased by the challenger having $1m to lose.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
There is no deciept by Keen, Batters or Ms H. Only supposition of such, yet there is not even any evidence to make that suppositiion.

:confused:
And this right after a post detailing blatantly incorrect information from those very sources. You have not challenged Stumpy's refutation of these statements, so we can only assume you agree that these statements were inaccruate. If these statments are inaccurate, then someone is either lying or just plain wrong.

This does not necessarily mean intentional deception, as Stumpy also made clear. It certainly doesn't rule it out, either. But whether they had good intent or not, they were wrong about many things.

[Ed]

All you will get from this character is dancing and no direct statements in response to your questions and observations.

[SteveGrenard]

On the issue of Batters giving evidence in a formal or trial proceeding in this case, Keen says he will double check this statement w/sources and let me know.

There are basically three things Stumpy and Youens say is wrong with Keen and Playfair's investigation of the case:

1. Whether or not Batters was a principal in the investigation. He was principally in volved, was first on the scene and most importantly he interviewed Holohan with the unnamed colleague.
This makes him "principal" in that respect. If Stumpy and Youens wish to widen that to everything about the case that is their perogrative.

2. Whether or not Batters gave evidence at Ruark's trial or pre-trial proceedings. We have to get that distinction correct. He is double checking his facts on this but it is irrelevant to the issue of the medium's statements and whether they were accurate or true or not and whether they could, all 120 or 130 of them, be obtained in some normal or non-paranormal manner. This is an area that is skirted around by Stumpy and Youens. It is understandable since we do not know what each and everyone of those points were or are.

3. A single mistake by the medium citing that the day of the murder was the eve of the murder, a different day by a matter of hours. We do not know the reason for this but the medium asserts this what the dead woman said to her. I dont suppose time, days of the week or anything like that means a whole lot to a dead person anymore. But we can't hang an entire refutation on this either. Fifty or sixty wrong items out of 130 would be better. Nor can we hang an entire refutation on what the communicator did not tell her -- the whereabouts of the stolen jewelry. However there is more coming on that in any case, its just not verified as yet. so wont say more on this.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by FutileJester


:confused:
And this right after a post detailing blatantly incorrect information from those very sources. You have not challenged Stumpy's refutation of these statements, so we can only assume you agree that these statements were inaccruate. If these statments are inaccurate, then someone is either lying or just plain wrong.

This does not necessarily mean intentional deception, as Stumpy also made clear. It certainly doesn't rule it out, either. But whether they had good intent or not, they were wrong about many things.

You are talking about split-hairs about who was in Court, for what reason or titles.:rolleyes: Even Randi has a history of some very poor reportage, so don't try apply selective skepticism here, it doesn't wash. I'm not interested in the minutae in reportage, I'm interested in the information which Ms H gave the police, in positivity, public spirit and integrity. It has not been refuted past completely unfounded supposition, which is not critical thinking in any shape or form. But it is the sort of wishfull thinking some of the True Unbelievers here have desperately tried to hang on to.:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Why don't you ask Keen to join this forum? Or Schwartz? Or any of those you claim connection with?

It would be so much easier to work things out, without having to go through you.

After all, you are not the most reliable person to deal with...if you pardon my candor...

[Stumpy]

Thanks Steve, your efforts in trying to progress this is much appreciated.

There are basically three things Stumpy and Youens say is wrong with Keen and Playfair's investigation of the case:

There are actually more than 3 things that we take issue with in Keen & Playfairs reportage, or certainly statements asserted by Mr Keen in the original thread.

1) The assertion that Batters was a detective is incorrect.
2) The assertion that Batters was PRINCIPAL detective is incorrect.
2) The assertion that Batters was "a principal witness at the eventual trial" is incorrect.
3) The assertion that Batters recovered a sweater from Ruarks dust-bin is incorrect.
4) The assertion that Batters notes were "part of the evidence in the case at the time" is incorrect (DCI McKinlay reviewed the entire case and found no such notes)
5) The assertion that "The conviction was based on DNA found on stowed evidence, a sweater and other samples from he deceased" is incorrect. (DCI McKinlay states that he has no knowledge of any DNA from the sweater and no such evidence was presented in evidence.)
6) The assertion that "At the very preliminary stage of the inquiry when Batters and Smith were interviewing Holohan, Ruark was not a prime suspect" is incorrect. Both Lundy and McKinlay refute this.

Furthermore Keen makes reference to Batters "dated notes", can Keen confirm WHEN the notes were dated? i.e when were the notes made, during the interview with Holohan or sometime later? Has Keen seen the "original" handwritten notes or the typed notes dated Sept 2001?
Also you stated that Keen has informed you that "the official record appears in the public files and court records had been reviewed". Can you eloborate what these "public files" are? The Police or CPS do not make any "public files " available in respect of murder enquiries , save in exceptional circumstances. Can Keen elaborate what court records have been reviewed?

Thanks

Stumpy

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You are talking about split-hairs about who was in Court, for what reason or titles.:rolleyes:

First of all the point I was responding too was not the relative weight of the inaccuracies. I was responding to the your statement that there was no deceit, when obviously there was. (Note that this was in reply to Stumpy who clearly defined deceit to cover intentional and unintentional falsehood, just to clarify.)

Secondly, I think these assertions carry more weight than you're giving them credit for. Consider two descriptions:

The lead detective in the case interviewed Holohan. The notes were entered into evidence and the officer gave evidence at the trial. After the interview Ruark became the prime suspect.
The beat officer who was first on the scene interviewed Holohan. The notes were not entered into evidence and the officer did not testify at trial. Before the interview, Ruark was already the prime suspect.


This is a huge difference.

Even Randi has a history of some very poor reportage, so don't try apply selective skepticism here, it doesn't wash.

Nice strawman. I don't take Randi at his word either. I routinely check other information sources to confirm or deny things I pick up here.

I'm not interested in the minutae in reportage, I'm interested in the information which Ms H gave the police, in positivity, public spirit and integrity. It has not been refuted past completely unfounded supposition, which is not critical thinking in any shape or form. But it is the sort of wishfull thinking some of the True Unbelievers here have desperately tried to hang on to.:rolleyes:

When most of the statements that actually can be verified are shown to be inaccurate to various degrees, it's certainly prudent to question the statements that can't be verified.

People do not always remember things as they really happened. People also unintentionally exaggerate. And, of course, people lie. These obvious observations provide us with many reasons to question what we've read, especially after seeing the many errors, all of which happened to shift the evidence in favor of a paranormal explanation. So there were 130 "amazingly accurate" statements, none of which told the police anything new, or changed the course of the investigation, or were even entered into evidence or brought up in court; why should we assume communication with the dead is necessary to achieve this non-result?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There are basically three things Stumpy and Youens say is wrong with Keen and Playfair's investigation of the case:

We'll leave aside the math/counting questions for a moment, but . . . three appears a bit low.



1. Whether or not Batters was a principal in the investigation.


I just wanted to stop here because this is a good example of 'claim drift.'

Initial Claim (By Keen Via SG):
Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark.

Restatement/Explanation of Claim (By Keen):

Tony Batters was the principal detective involved. He was part of Lundy's team. Batters forced entry into the flat and found the body, spent five hours there, making elaborate notes, and was a principal witness at the eventual trial. I used the expression "principal detective involved" in the sense in which would commonly be understood.

Between the two, these facts are claimed:

(1) Principal Police Detective involved in case ("in the sense that would commonly be understood").

(2) Retrieved pullover (elsewhere said to contain valuable DNA).

(3) Was a "Principal witness" at the trial.

Lets deal with just (1) and (3) for the moment:

(1) Principal Police Detective.

This statement begins as "Principal Police Detective" (who was a "principal witness" -- a very principled fellow).

By the end of this page, you have reworded this to being a "principal in the investigation." While even that claim mioght be questionable, you have come in and completely reworded the original statements by Keen to soften the claim and make it less specific -- without actually acknowledging that the original statement is simply, clearly wrong.

(3) Principal Witness at Trial.

This has also drifted far from the original statement.

If you follow your messages on this page alone, you start by asking why it is important that he was not a witness at the trial, followed by a statement that maybe they could clarify whether he gave evidence in some "pre-trial proceedings."

You follow up with yet another claim that whether he testified at trial is unimportant to the claims about the alleged psychic. But you've changed the statement in asking that question -- he wasn't just "a" witness at some preliminary hearing (according to the claims) -- he was "the principal witness at trial." If such a basic mistake is being made by the person responsible for reporting this case (and not just made once, but repeated in an effort to explain the "principal detective" mistake above), then major questions are being raised about the process - and then apparently ignored.

You ask how this is relevant, but how can the credibility and accuracy of the person doing the reporting on this psychic not be relevant to an examination of the claims about her?! The information comes from Keen, who -- in attempting to bolster the importance of the police officer -- also manages to make staggering mistakes in doing so. If these facts are so unimportant, one must wonder why they were brought up in the first place.

It would be important that he was the principal witness at the trial because that would help; when this is found to be incorrect, then it is irrelevant. But it wasn't the skeptical reviewers that brought this up in the first place - it was Keen.

So, no, the point was not "[w]hether or not Batters was a principal in the investigation." The point was that the initial claims that Batters was a "principal police detective" and the "principal witness at trial" are wildly innacurate. and the source of this information is the same one that we must trust for most of the other facts on this account.

NA

[Mr. Skinny]

I see that the newest member of the forum is "tonyyouens". Perhaps he can address some of the questions.

[Ed]

Why are so many Brits named Tony? What ever happened to "Clive" and "Mortimer" and "Niegel" and "Reggie"? What is it with these wop names? Am I the only one who has noticed this? Something is going on and I was not informed.:eek:

In any event, he is quite welcome.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Your "posts", are nothing other than supposition, wishfull thinking or your own opinion. You provide nothing which supports your suppositions. Forgive me, but this is a forum for critical thinkers not wishfull thinkers. All you can do is claim that Ms H is dishonest or criminally involved, like JREF's resident Ms Cleo did. She is neither, and there is no evidence to even suggest that she is.

No. My posts are questions and statements based on the articles available to someone who is not in the UK. They demonstrate incorrect conclusions drawn by people like you and internal inconsistencies in Holohan's/Batters' stories.

I'll play the game a bit longer, though, and make it easy. Let it be known that I do not expect you to answer this question. I suspect, as Ed states, that you will either ignore this question, deride it, or obfuscate. I will apologize if you demonstrate otherwise.

Ahem...

Can you name one piece of information provided by Holohan to the police that was not known before she spoke to them?

What is it?

I'll wait a bit...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
On the issue of Batters giving evidence in a formal or trial proceeding in this case, Keen says he will double check this statement w/sources and let me know.



Hi Steve.

Don't you think that he should have already done that? According to him and to Batters the info provided by Christina was verified by the DNA test and of course since this is a new method the court must have been very careful in examining apart from the test the evidence provided by the Police Investigation. So, I am certain that the case was scrutinized in court.

I find strange that he wasn't aware of whether Batters testified or not but let's give him the benefit of the doubt...

[Garrette]

Steve,

I am legitimately interested in your response to an earlier post of mine. Care to give it a crack?

In your recent posts you claim that Stumpy is (in my words) focusing on unimportant issues and not on the crucial parts of Batters' claims.

I disagree with this, but will leave that for Stumpy to argue.

Meantime, what issues of substance do you dispute? One of these, perhaps?

1) Ruark was the prime suspect and had been arrested prior to Holohan contacting the police.

2) Holohan gave no information to the police that was not already known.

3) Ruark was convicted because of the advance of technology and the persistence of the victim's family in pushing the police to keep trying.

4) The 120 specific statements are not, in fact, specific.

5) Holohan said she was first visited by the victim's spirit on the Sunday after the murders but also said it was after she had read newspaper accounts of the murder. This is impossible as Jackie's (the victim's) body was not found until Sunday, hence the first article did not appear until later.

6) Holohan said she was shown by Jackie's spirit all the specifics of the crime scene, meaning she knew--before she spoke to the police--everything there was to know. Yet Holohan had to go into a "trance" in Batters' presence to bring the information forth. Why?

7) Holohan gave significantly incorrect information along. (Saturday as the day of the murder as opposed to Friday; Ickeham; garden.)


Do you consider these items central to Batters' claim?

Do you dispute them?

[CFLarsen]

Garrette,

These questions can - and will - be added to the list of questions Steve doesn't want to answer... :)

[Garrette]

Much obliged, pardner.

[SteveGrenard]

I have discussed some of your comments once again with Keen and he has once again been kind enough to respond to me. The next few days may be required to obtain additional confirmations to some of these renarks but in the meantime.....


Re the assertion that all the information given by Holohan
was already known to the police: "This is simply untrue, and we will demonstrate as much in our paper - although even if it were true it would not begin to explain how Holohan knew so much so accurately and in such detail without the use of telepathy."


"As for so-called misses, there was really only one, and that so minor as to be barely worth noting, save to remark that one could hardly expect a newly raped and murdered woman who finds herself dead to be totally coherent, orderly and accurate in her transmissions to a medium. The scribbled reference to
"Ickeham", misspelled in the way that the dyslexic victim might have written it, incidentally, "Gardens" and a number were misinterpreted by the police at the time. Only later, many years later, when Batters was puzzling over their meaning after the trial, did it strike him that these might be a clue to where the
stolen jewellery had been hidden. My colleague and I discuss this (among other matters) in our peer-reviewed article."

"Nor was there any contradiction in Holohan's account of the appearance of the apparition and the subsequent imparting of details."

"As to the extent to which Holohan's information was helpful in bringing Ruark to justice: without her information the police would not have retrieved a discarded pullover from Ruark's apartment, interviewed and taken statements from
everyone with whom Ruark came in contact after the evening of the murder, and checked and verified all his movements during the previous fortnight: three elements which proved important in combating the victim's defence at his trial."

"As to why Batters (it really isn't necessary to stoop to the level of calling him Batty*) didn't print his article soon after the murder, it beggers belief that anyone could pose so naive and silly a question."

"I'm awaiting a comment from Tony Batters to statements by Adrian Shaw so I'd prefer to reserve comment until then."

"As for Batters' trial testimony, my understanding is that he did testify, since he was the officer who discovered the body and took notes of all that surrounded it. But please await confirmation."




____________________________________________

SG personally hastens to add (*) that if it was not the intent of the skeptics here to discredit and marginalize Batters, then they would not use such ad hominems. This type of remark is beneath contempt.

[RonSceptic]

This case was solved by normal police work. End. The involvement of a so called psychic had zero impact on the eventual outcome.

The most illuminating aspect of this case is the very shoddy nature of the research by Keen and his associates. Basic factual errors. There is no hiding from it.

The attempt by some posters here to dismiss there errors as unimportant is ludicrous. It shows a complete lack of objectivity.

[SteveGrenard]

ED: "Why are so many Brits named Tony? What ever happened to "Clive" and "Mortimer" and "Niegel" and "Reggie"? What is it with these wop names? Am I the only one who has noticed this? Something is going on and I was not informed."



Ed - No you are not. I brought it up above.


The following Tony's are involved in this case so far as we know:

Tony Youens - a skeptic
Tony Lundy - a cop
Tony Batters - a cop
Anthony " Pokie " Ruark - even the killer could be a Tony

and by extension...........

Tony Chalhoub who plays the role of a detective named
Adrian on American TV (this is called stretching....) who has
OCD which helps him solve cases.

[Garrette]

All quotations from SteveGrenard, apparently from Keen.

Steve, am I correct in assuming that you are abdicating any position or opinion of your own in favor of Keen's? That is how it appears after reading this post.


Re the assertion that all the information given by Holohan was already known to the police: "This is simply untrue, and we will demonstrate as much in our paper - although even if it were true it would not begin to explain how Holohan knew so much so accurately and in such detail without the use of telepathy."

So there is nothing yet published indicating anything Holohan revealed was unknown to the police. That includes the items mentioned in Batters' article.

Got it.

And the final statement beginning "although even if it were true..." is a complete abandonment of the psychic-helps-police claim, you realize.

Does Holohan claim telepathic ability now, too?



"As for so-called misses, there was really only one, and that so minor as to SNIP

Bull crap. Ickeham was a miss. Garden was a miss. Saturday was a miss. The fight starting in the bathroom was a miss.

All else in this portion does not address anything. The victim was dyslexic? This explains the misspelling of Ickeham? I didn't know it was misspelled, but so what? Is it not just as likely that Holohan simply misspelled it on her own?

So Batters guesses, 2 years after the fact, that the missing jewelry might be in a garden in Ickeham (SP?). Never supports the idea nor proves it, just guesses it. Amazing evidence that...

This is grasping at concrete straws.

one could hardly expect a newly raped and murdered woman who finds herself dead to be totally coherent, orderly
and accurate in her transmissions to a medium.

Well, if one believes other mediums one can most certainly expect it. Name me one medium who portrays the dead as anything but happy and undisturbed. JE never does. Brian Hurst never does. George Andersen? I don't think so, but I'm less sure.

This would certainly be a first in the world of mediumship:

SPIRIT ACTUALLY UPSET ABOUT BEING RAPED AND STRANGLED!! NAMES MURDERER!! OTHER SPIRITS SUE FOR BREACH OF SPIRIT STANDARDS!!

That bit about naming the murderer, btw, is something that has been repeatedly put forth as something spirits are not interested in. Wonder why it works for Holohan...



"Nor was there any contradiction in Holohan's account of the appearance of the apparition and the subsequent imparting of details."

More bull puckey.

Claim: Holohan said she read newspaper accounts before being visited by the victim's spirit; she also says she received the first visit on Sunday.

Fact: The body was discovered on Sunday; newspaper articles did not appear until Monday.

Claim: Holohan said that in a series of visits from the victim's spirit (or apparition), she (Holohan) was informed of all the details of the murder and the location it happened. Batters said Holohan went into "self-induced trances" during his interview(s) of her, during which she imparted information, sometimes speaking as Holohan, sometimes as the victim.

Fact: If Holohan had received all the information from the apparitional visits prior to speaking to Batters, then there was no need to go into a trance during the interview. In addition, these are now two separate claims of Holohan's: (1) She is [in my words] a Sensitive who sees and hears ghosts (2) She is a trance medium

without her information the police would not have retrieved a discarded pullover from Ruark's apartment, interviewed and taken statements from everyone with whom Ruark came in contact after the evening of the murder, and
checked and verified all his movements during the previous fortnight: three elements which proved important in combating the victim's defence at his trial."


I take it this is an honest mistake and the word "victim's" in the last sentence is supposed to be "suspect's".

Regarding the pullover, I'll leave it to Stumpy to argue, but I'll buy you a drink if it turns out that any pullover used in evidence was not already in police custody before Holohan was interviewed.

Regarding the interviews and statements, I make the same offer.

Regarding Ruark's movements, I'll say without fear of contradiction: "Complete and utter codswallop."

Ruark was the prime suspect before Holohan was known to exist. Damn skippy the police tracked his movements without needing Holohan's prodding to do so.

I'll up my offer: demonstrate any--I repeat any--information regarding Ruark's movements that were unknown to the police until after Holohan's interview and I'll pay for the book of your choice to be added to the JREF library, if they'll have it. Up to the cost of Gauld's Mediumship and Survival, which has a hefty price tag. If you'd rather it go somewhere else, suggest it and I'll be amenable to negotiation.

In fairness to myself, I should add the legalistic caveat that says "any information regarding Ruark's movements that would have remained unknown without Holohan's assistance" but then we'll get into too subjective an area. It's entirely possible the police found something, outside Holohan's help, after the interview, but I'll take the risk anyway and leave the offer as worded in the previous paragraph.

With your permission, I'll use Stumpy as judge, though you may suggest another.

"As to why Batters (it really isn't necessary to stoop to the level of calling him Batty*) didn't print his article soon after the murder, it beggers belief that anyone could pose so naive and silly a question."


I rather find it beggers belief that anyone could NOT pose so obvious and important a question. Batters and Holohan were certain before the conviction, weren't they?

{Edited for format problem}

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

I would appreciate Keen's feedback on the points raised in my previous post, if that's possible.

Tony Youens has just spoken to Lundy again in respect of the points Keen has raised:

He conceeds that is POSSIBLE that Batters gave evidence in court in respect of what he saw at the scene. However if this is the case certainly he could not be described as a "principal witness". It also raises the question that IF Batters did give evidence, why wasn't the crucial evidence that he obtained from Holohan discussed?

As to the extent to which Holohan's information was helpful in bringing Ruark to justice: without her information the police would not have retrieved a discarded pullover from Ruark's apartment, interviewed and taken statements from everyone with whom Ruark came in contact after the evening of the murder, and checked and verified all his movements during the previous fortnight:

I note that the previous assertion that Batters retrieved the discarded pullover has now been modified to "police retrieved the discarded pullover".

This has been raised with Lundy. He is emphatic, the investitgation into Ruark and his subsequent arrest was due ENTIRELY to traditional policing methods. Absolutely NO decisions concerning the investigation of Ruark were even remotely influenced by any information provided by Holohan. There was no record of interview/statement/or any other notes taken during any conversation with Holohan submitted to the enquiry in respect of the alleged information provided by Holohan. The decision making process during the original enquiry rested with Lundy alone, he is umabiguous:Holohans's information played absolutely no part in the investigation, arrest or conviction of Ruark.

Also Ruark was first interviewed by detectives on the day that Poole's body was discovered. The detectives who interviewed Ruark were convinced that Ruark was the offender immediately after that interview. The label "prime suspect" is therefore appropriate for the status of Ruark, indeed, during the initial enquiry Lundy noted in his official records that "Ruark is the person most likely to have committed this offence". This assertion was in no way influenced by Holohan's "information". It was this assertion that that lead McKinlay to check Ruark's DNA against a sample taken from the body of the deceased when the technology was mature enough to be effective. It was the unsatisfactory answers provided by Ruark in the initial interviews (several days before Holohan's alleged involvement that lead the Police to focus on Ruark and investigate his movements over the preceeding weeks.

regards

Stumpy

[juninho]

I realise quite a few people might have seen this site before but in light of the current thread I thought it might be of some interest.

Professionals Against Confidence Crime (http://pac-c.org/police%20&%20psychics.htm)

Happy reading!

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
The most illuminating aspect of this case is the very shoddy nature of the research by Keen and his associates. Basic factual errors. There is no hiding from it.

The attempt by some posters here to dismiss there errors as unimportant is ludicrous. It shows a complete lack of objectivity.

Nail on the head, Ron. It's a matter of credibility, even if the points are small. And the points are far from small anyway. All together, they amount to the difference between a miracle and good police work.

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy MISATTRIBUTES AND LIES: "Now, according to Steve Grenard she has previously assisted the RAF with a project involving her psychic abilities."


Er, Stumpy why are you lying about this? Does this mean you lie about other things? Clearly I never said anything like the above. I simply asked you if you came across anything like this in your inqueries. BTW I got my answer to this. She was working at RAF Northolt (I think its called) but it may have had nothing directly to do with these special abilities. Hence the issue is closed. Please do not turn a question I asked into a positive statement I did not make. Thank you.

See how easy it is to make a misattribution or get something wrong?

Keen will talk to Batters when he is well enough to clarify the testimony issue. As you know, if you were in contact with him you should know why. If you wish to discuss this with me in PM please feel free but I dont think this is the place to do so in respect to Tony Batters.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Stumpy MISATTRIBUTES AND LIES: "Now, according to Steve Grenard she has previously assisted the RAF with a project involving her psychic abilities."


Er, Stumpy why are you lying about this? Does this mean you lie about other things? Clearly I never said anything like the above. I simply asked you if you came across anything like this in your inqueries. BTW I got my answer to this. She was working at RAF Northolt (I think its called) but it may have had nothing directly to do with these special abilities. Hence the issue is closed. Please do not turn a question I asked into a positive statement I did not make. Thank you.

That is a bald-faced lie, Steve. Here is what you said:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability? Or should we even mention this? I was just wondering if you came across this and would be able to or could share this. If not, I will not say more about it.


You clearly claimed it had to do with her ability.

Steve, are you on drugs?

[Stumpy]

..err Hi Steve



Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability?

YOU stated that this was a FACT! You claimed that it was a fact that she was using her mediumistic abilities on an RAF project.
I then pointed that you claimed she had been working on an RAF project using her mediumistic abilities. You now claim that you didn't type those words above? You are seriously claiming that you didn't post that above and that I am lying??!?? Where have I lied, I genuinely confused here, you claim something as a fact and then refute that fact, then claim that I made the whole thing up! What are you playing at?

Tony Youens has pointed out an error in my previous post (thanks). Ruark was 1st interviewed the day after Poole's body was recovered, still several days before the alleged interview with Holohan.

Stumpy

[CFLarsen]

Stumpy,

You have to realize that this is an old strategy of Steve's. When he is cornered (nice work, btw), he resorts to personal attacks. I have debated with Steve on 3 other boards, and he does this again and again.

[Stumpy]

Steve

I am willing to acknowledge and correct any errors pointed out to me. I'm sorry but the allegation of my lying in respect of the claim that YOU clealy made on this open forum is simply too much. I trust as you have made the allegation in an open forum you will issue an apology in the same forum.

Stumpy

[Dragon]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It is not at all revealing or significant that Batters did not eventually testify in Ruark's trial 18 years after the fact. Why should he? The mediumistic evidence he took down was not admissible in court when he first obtained it nor was it 18 years later. There was nothing Batters could offer the court in this case. The suspect, already in prison for another offense, was convicted on the basis of newly available DNA technology. This has been stated repeatedly from post 1 for those who missed it.

It has also been stated that with respect to the matter of the mediumnistic evidence which is now being debated Batters, however, was, is and along with his unnamed partner, remains the principal investigator involved with this aspect of the case. He is also is the author of the PolFed article like it or not as
some say here and above. In an effort to discredit his role in this part of the case, the only part of the case which we happen to be debating, Tony Yuens and Detective Stumpy want to trivliaize and marginalize Batters' role in the overall case as a means to discredit him.

So yes Stumpy, this is a time worn tactic. We need better evidence than this. I have not read any exaggerated claims on this case to make your opposite position valid. Only a recitation of the facts, all of which are published elsewhere and which everyone here has had a chance to read whether or not they read them or not.

The what ifs and anything is possible and the fact that cops as well as anybody can be fooled by a fraudulent medium are well and good but given the specifics presented with respect to the medium's report, we need a further airing of the case. I agree with those who said we should have an accounting of the 120 or 130 points of information. I will have to ask if this will be made, when and where (e.g. in the final journal article?).

Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability? Or should we even mention this? I was just wondering if you came across this and would be able to or could share this. If not, I will not say more about it.
The full post by Steve which includes the "RAF" claim. Just in case.

Edited to add:- the post is timed at 09-10-2003 10:33 PM and has yet to be edited.

[Dragon]

Steve,

Can I draw your attention to your words in bold below?
Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability? Or should we even mention this? I was just wondering if you came across this and would be able to or could share this. If not, I will not say more about it.
This suggests to me that you have more information on this point. If so, are you able to share it?

[NoZed Avenger]

Jesus. On a Pogo Stick. Christ.



I will now shake the dust of this thread from my boots and walk away, shaking my head.

NA

[Ed]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


The most illuminating aspect of this case is the very shoddy nature of the research by Keen and his associates. Basic factual errors. There is no hiding from it.

The attempt by some posters here to dismiss there errors as unimportant is ludicrous. It shows a complete lack of objectivity.

Ron,

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I think that "shoddy research" is a hallmark of paranormal investigations. I think that if "good" research were conducted, there would be nothing to talk about. After all, how do people like Keen and Schwartz get their money and/or jollies? Persuing this particular will 'o the wisp.

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy. Evidently you are not aware of the significance of a question mark, or the statement what means "wondering if you..." etc etc. You answered the question in the negative and I appreciated that. You then turn that around and make it a statement of fact on my part. Please refrain from doing so in the future and also refrain from ignoring the significance of extremely simple English language symbols such as comma,s periods or q-marks. Thanks again.

I did indeed receive another private answer to this question involving Holohan's emplyment at RAF Northolt but there is nothing more to say about this with respect to her. Have you heard of Northolt? (This is QUESTION ...please be very careful about what you attribute to this..and keep in mind I am not in
England so don't know these places as well as you probably do)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Stumpy. Evidently you are not aware of the significance of a question mark, or the statement what means "wondering if you..." etc etc. You answered the question in the negative and I appreciated that. You then turn that around and make it a statement of fact on my part. Please refrain from doing so in the future and also refrain from ignoring the significance of extremely simple English language symbols such as comma,s periods or q-marks. Thanks again.

I did indeed receive another private answer to this question involving Holohan's emplyment at RAF Northolt but there is nothing more to say about this with respect to her. Have you heard of Northolt? (This is QUESTION ...please be very careful about what you attribute to this..and keep in mind I am not in
England so don't know these places as well as you probably do)

Save for posterity.

Steve, there is no chance that your post could be interpreted as anything else but a claim. Why don't you just say that you were not very clear? This is downright silly of you....

Oh, well....your choice.

[Stumpy]

Steve

You are obviously blissfully unaware of the meaning of the word "fact" and basic sentence construction wherein a statement is contained within a question.

You were asking me if I was aware of the claim that you were making. I could hardly be aware of the claim if it was false, as you now point out is the case, could I? The fact that I was unaware of the claim does not then nullify the claim. I re-iterated the CLAIM that YOU made. You then state that the claim contained within your question was not made.

I was rather hoping for a mature, critical discussion on this whole issue. It is rather pathetic to make the claim regarding Holohan's involvement in an RAF project into mediumship then backpeddle furiously when I announce that I will check the claim with the RAF (which I have done!).

Once again, the question contained a statement of FACT, to whit "Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability". YOU made the claim, I pointed out that you had made the claim, you then denied making the claim!

Once again an apology is in order. My prefessional reputation relies heavily on my honesty and intergrity. You have wrongly called this into question, judge acknowledge your error and apologise so that we can move this debate on.

Thank-you

Stumpy

[lofgoernost]

Originally posted by Steve

Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability?

Then Steve posts

Stumpy MISATTRIBUTES AND LIES: "Now, according to Steve Grenard she has previously assisted the RAF with a project involving her psychic abilities."


Finally Steve posts

Stumpy. Evidently you are not aware of the significance of a question mark, or the statement what means "wondering if you..." etc etc. You answered the question in the negative and I appreciated that. You then turn that around and make it a statement of fact on my part.

In your question to Stumpy you state that it is a fact that Holohan was working on an RAF project involving her ability as a medium. Is this not so? You're attack on Stumpy is unwarranted and juvenile. Be a big boy and apologize, otherwise I'll be forced to view your posts as merely a form of ludicrous entertainment.

Btw, Steve - any chance you could learn how to use the Quote feature of this forum? Your whole Question:/Reply: technique used in various threads can get confusing.

Edited to add:

Originally posted by Steve

The other reason I did not respond immediately was an object lesson in the propagation of ad hominem remarks against myself personally, the allegations repeated by certain people who you can freely see for yourself above stating I am "a believer."

For someone so expectant of ad hominems it troubles me that you are so quick to attack Stumpy, who is attempting to conduct a rational discusssion with you about this interesting subject. Just mellow out and be rational about it.

[SteveGrenard]

Somebody told me Holohan was working at RAF Northolt, and then as a medium. I asked you quite civially if you were aware of this FACT? You said you were NOT. I thank you for your answer but I am dissapointed that any attempt by myself to obtain information or ask questions is met with the very stereotypical tactic of turning the question on its end and making it into a statement of FACT by the person who asks the question. If you cannot see the simple logic in this then I apologize for any confusion you may have endured by my attempt to ascertain information from you. I will refrain from doing so in the future.


I have one more question I will risk though: is it a fact that you and/or Youens personally interviewed or talked with Tony Batters about this case?



I stand by my use of the ubiquitous question mark and the terminology that followed the question.

This is an excellent example of the word games certain people here play and it indeed belongs in some hall of fame for this kind of a tactic.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by lofgoernost
Your whole Question:/Reply: technique used in various threads can get confusing.

Intended.

[voidx]

Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability?
Have to agree with everyone else here Steve. This sentence structure gives the impression that you are asking if he is aware of the fact, which is assumed you know, since you asking if he knows about it, that Holohan was a medium at the time. This sentence portrays the intent that you are trying to bring this "fact" to stumpy's attention. If you had said, "Have you heard that Holohan was a medium working for the RAF at the time, because I remember someone telling me that and was wondering if it was true", then your complaint would be valid.

[Jeff Corey]

If someone asks me if I am, "...aware of the fact that X was the case.", then I and most other reasonable people would conclude the speaker meant that (s)he thought that X was a fact.
Fact.

[Ed]

Sorry Steve. I read your question as a querry about Stumps knowledge of a fact.

OK, let's move on, ok? (Direction couched as suggestion awaiting affermation, just to be clear)

[SteveGrenard]

There was in fact a specific reason for my question which is not even directly relevant to the question. It relates to my follow-up questions in re Northolt, whether Stumpy interviewed Batters personally, whether he was aware of certain information regarding Batters (which I told him I would be willing to discuss in PM but received nothing). I noted also that Stumpy said he was unaware of this information which indeed I may've couched as a fact (a term I use as in the example above) because Holohan's employment at RAF Northolt was presented to me as a fact,
and then the curious question as to whether this came from Holohan which I did not respond to but which Stumpy would know the answer to if he had interviewed Batters in detail.

I would also like to ask Stumpy what details Batters may've provided regarding Holohan's living arrangements at the time, why she was living where she was and with whom and for how
long?

Batters, according to Keen, is unavailable right now for any conversation for reasons beyond his control so this will have to
wait. Stumpy should know this as well if he is or was in recent contact with his policeman colleague. I sorta got a blank stare and avoidance on this. But again this could be taken to PM if so desired.

[Stumpy]

Steve

I have one more question I will risk though: is it a fact that you and/or Youens personally interviewed or talked with Tony Batters about this case?

I really would like some answers to the questions previously asked. You seem to ignore them, then plough on regardless, asking some questions of your own. This is becoming a one-way street.

However, maintaining my policy of answering any reasonable questions put to me: Tony Youens has corresponded with Tony Batters via email. You are obviously aware of the situation which makes a personal meeting with Mr Batters difficult.

Your previous posts are an excellent example of inaccurate heresay being presented as fact in respect of paranormal claims and it indeed belongs in some hall of fame for this kind of a tactic.

Stumpy

[Stumpy]

Steve

Holohan's employment at RAF Northolt was presented to me as a fact,

Why then did you feel the need to "guild the lilly" by stating that she was employed on a project involving her mediumistic abilities.

I sorta got a blank stare and avoidance on this.

No, you invited me to PM you, if I wished. I didn't wish to.

Any chance of answers to the outstanding questions yet?

Stumpy

[SteveGrenard]

Thank you. So you never saw his notes, never had a face to face or a voice/a/voice conversation with him, did not interview him or get any details regarding Holohan, the pullover or anything else directly from Batters. You got information then from personal contact with Lundy and McKinlay then?

Now to answer your questions. Like yourself, and I have never claimed to investigate this personally, I am unable, not unwilling, to answer your questions. However, they have been passed on to Montague Keen (of that I can assure you), and since you indicate you are aware of the problem in speaking with Batters easily, we have to await further improvement in that situation.

I never said I had a personal "opinion" on this case. I never said I had any personal first-hand knowledge. My information comes from Keen, and thru Keen, from Batters and his unnamed co-interviewer (of Holohan) who interviewed Holohan and whose name we both know. I have the utmost faith in Keen's ability to take down notes and report what he has learned. So this comes down to the inability or perhaps even the unwillingness of Lundy and McKinlay to corroborate what one of their fellow officers did with respect to this case. I am trying to figure out where you are hinging your case against Batters and the veridicality of Holohan.

We have press reports that fail to mention that Batters or Officer X gave testimony in Ruark's trial so this is turned into a denial of them ever having given such testimony. This is in spite of the fact that Battrers indisputably was first on the scene, broke down Poole's flat door and spent five hours securing the crime scene and observing the activities related to a murder such as this.
It goes back to the attempt to minimize, trivialize and marginalize anyone who gives unpopular or unwelcome testimony. The assertion that Batters was not involved at trial with this case will be further elucidated.

The pullover issue is far from over either as Keen, based on your remonstrations, will dig deeper now into this as well. If he finds you are correct so be it, if not, we would expect that you should at least be able to reveal where you got the contrary evidence regarding the non-existence of this garment. Although it is presumably from Lundy. Right?

But again, please do not expect me to supply you with answers from my personal, first hand knowledge. You know everything I know and how I know it as of now.

Thank you for your response.

[Stumpy]

Steve

we would expect that you should at least be able to reveal where you got the contrary evidence regarding the non-existence of this garment

Tony Youens or I have never asserted that this garment doesn't exist. We fully accept that a discarded pullover belonging to Ruark was recovered. What we take issue with is the following:

The assertion that this garment was recovered by Tony Batters

AND

The assertion that it was Holohan's intervention that lead to the garment being recovered.

AND

The assertion that it yielded any DNA evidence that contributed towards the conviction.

So this comes down to the inability or perhaps even the unwillingness of Lundy and McKinlay to corroborate what one of their fellow officers did with respect to this case.

Have you considered the possibility that they can't/won't corroborate Batter's story because it does not accurately reflect what happened within the enquiry?

Stumpy

[Jeff Corey]

Grenard's Lexicongame

Fact: Something I read or heard somewhere, but I have no real data.

Liar: Someone who accurately quotes me when I say something is a fact, when, in fact, it isn't.

Survival "science". Grenard's defunct board which only allowed the posting of "facts" (see definition #1).

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Grenard's Lexicongame

(see definition #1).

Jeff, I always think of this poem when you post. No connection except a homophonic last name. One of my favorites.


Richard Cory
By E.A. Robinson

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.
And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich --- yes, richer than a king ---
And admirable schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.


You may all return to the mundane now.

[Garrette]

Just wanting to add my unneeded agreement to those comments about Steve's methods.

Your question about Holohan at Northolt had the bit about her mediumship there embedded in it as fact. There is no escaping it. You have demonstrated enough intelligence to understand that. Which unfortunately then damns your attempts to backpedal.

Now you are trying to attack Stumpy on this. Shameful.

I, however, am still interested in the substance of the case. Care to take me up on my offer? It's no risk to you.

[SteveGrenard]

Okay now, what have we learned from a few pointed questions, even at the risk of being accused of a deception myself.

First we now have a concession that Batters "possibly” could have testified in court afterall. So we can dismiss all the cheering that that he was so unimportant to this case he was not even called to give evidence. But now, if so, why didn’t he give the Holohan evidence? Well there are several simple reasons for that:

1. He was confined to presenting the facts of the crime as he knew them and not witness statements or statements by alleged mediums.

Witnesses generally testify themselves and do not have their interrogators do it for them. I can see no difference in this where Holohan was concerned. There was no need 18 years later to bring her back into this case given the DNA technology available.


2. Witnesses are not allowed to go off on tangents and present hearsay, even policemen.

3. Batters could only confine himself to answering questions posted by the attorneys for both sides. If they did not ask him about Holohan then he could not introduce her material himself. That should be evident.

Is the lawyer still here? Care to comment about this?

4. The information given by Holohan 18 years later was not needed to convict Ruark since they had DNA evidence including DNA evidence from Ruark’s discarded pullover which
contained blood and fluid traces.

The technology to obtain DNA from such a source did not exist when this garment was first recovered.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stumpy wrote:
Tony Youens has just spoken to Lundy again in respect of the points Keen has raised:

He conceeds that is POSSIBLE that Batters gave evidence in court in respect of what he saw at the scene. However if this is the case certainly he could not be described as a "principal witness". It also raises the question that IF Batters did give evidence, why wasn't the crucial evidence that he obtained from Holohan discussed?





Stumpy also wrote:

Tony Youens or I have never asserted that this garment doesn't exist. We fully accept that a discarded pullover belonging to Ruark was recovered. What we take issue with is the following:

The assertion that this garment was recovered by Tony Batters

AND

The assertion that it was Holohan's intervention that lead to the garment being recovered.

AND

The assertion that it yielded any DNA evidence that contributed towards the conviction.

Good, we have an admission that the discarded pullover does exist or, rather, than Youens and Stumpy do not assert it did NOT exist. This is contrary to what were lead to believe before.

So assuming this pullover exists we are left with needing to confirm or disprove 4 things about it:

1. Batters retrieved it or caused it to be retrieved from Ruark’s dustbin.

2. We concede Batters may not have pulled it out of the dustbin personally, but after having learned of its retrieval, attached importance to it, causing it to be preserved and that he did so based on what he had learned from Holohan.


3. Batters caused it to be preserved for 18 years as evidence even though Ruark was released as a suspect and not charged with the crime all this time. I am not familiar with the rules governing the holding of such evidence from persons released as suspects in murder cases in the UK so will not comment further.
If one is suspected, even charged and then exonerated or released of a charge in the U.S. personal evidence taken by the police is generally returned to the suspect unless it is somehow in some other way linked to the crime. Of course this pullover was retrieved from a trash can. If it was outside Ruark's flat it may've been free to take. ????


4.That the blood and fluid residue on this garment was or was not tested using the new DNA technology and did or did not turn out positive for Poole’s DNA typing, thus linking Ruark to the murder. Keen nor anyone else is doubting that other DNA samples were performed and even carried more weight than this one.

The pullover was brought up because Batters recalled it as important, that when it was retrieved, he felt it should be held as evidence, etc.




Stumpy asks: Have you considered the possibility that they can't/won't corroborate Batter's story because it does not accurately reflect what happened within the enquiry?


So we are hinging the entire refutation of Batter’s account of his and his police colleague (X) with Holohan based on a different interpretation of the events by his supervisors, and quite possibly even by their failure to consider or to otherwise
ignore the Holohan interview Batters and X brought in. Is that correct? So what happened? they shelved the case and waited 18 years for science to re open it for them. Fine.

Frankly I don't think there was a great deal of traditional police work, grilling of the suspect, looking for evidence that would've worked 18 years ago and so forth as Lundy claims. If there was they should've pinned this on Ruark a long time ago.

They used to convict people of murder before DNA didn't they?

And we also now have the concession that the investigation undertaken by Youens was conducted by e-mail with Batters and that he never personally spoke with Batters or examined the evidence as others have. We also know that any OPINION regarding Batters' and Police Officer X intrraction with Holohan was, in fact, based on the failure of Lundy or Lundy's superiors to mention it. What is the old saw about that one? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

[juninho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
First we now have a concession that Batters "possibly” could have testified in court afterall. So we can dismiss all the cheering that that he was so unimportant to this case he was not even called to give evidence. But now, if so, why didn’t he give the Holohan evidence? Well there are several simple reasons for that:


I can't be bothered at the moment to address all your points but just because Batters 'possibly' testified in court does not mean that you can dismiss anything. Until the situation is ratified we cannot be sure whether he testified in court or not, but that is all. How you can deduce from this that he is important to the case is beyond me. Perhaps, IF he did testify it was to explain the crime scene as he saw it when he discovered the body. Hardly fundamental to the prosecution is it? This seems to be a typical ploy of yours, ergo reading far too much into a situation than it merits.

I think it shows the character of Stumpy that he has gone back repeatedly over the facts and has admitted where he may, and I mean may, have got the wires crossed. I wonder if you would have done the same?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Grenard's Lexicongame

Fact: Something I read or heard somewhere, but I have no real data.

Liar: Someone who accurately quotes me when I say something is a fact, when, in fact, it isn't.

Survival "science". Grenard's defunct board which only allowed the posting of "facts" (see definition #1).

Indeed.

In fact I am almost ready to post a public apology to Claus for the comments I have made regarding his "lists" and his debating methods with some people....

[Garrette]

Steve, I am sure Stumpy will address the points of your last post far better than I could, but I want to hit a couple of them myself anyway.

Batters would not "cause" any evidence to be retained. If evidence is collected, it is turned it, and it is retained. There is no such scenario as the evidence room guy going through open case files and very nearly throwing out a garment entered as evidence and then the policeman rushing up and saying "No! Keep that! In 18 years there may be a technological breakthrough that will validate our psychic, even though the suspect she named had already been arrested and was/is the prime suspect before she came forward!"

That's what you're suggesting, you know.

---

I don't know if Batters testified or not. But if he did and was not asked about Holohan's testimony by either attorney, do you not think that is significant?

Better yet, no one called Holohan herself to testify.

Maybe the legal system in the UK is such they were not allowed to talk about any evidence that originated from a psychic. Okay.

But they were still able to prove their case.

Understand this, Steve: Without any reference to Holohan in the courtroom, the police were able to establish a trail of evidence sufficient to convict Ruark. They were able to defend their actions during the investigation as consistent with good policework and the preservation of individual liberties insofar as they are protected in the UK (said because I don't know the equivalent laws regarding warrants and such in the UK).

---

Almost finally,

I recognize you're answering a lot of posts here all by yourself, but would you care to address the specific questions I had, either with or without my offer of the book purchase and drinks?

---

Finally, finally,

You just said yourself that it was a technological breakthrough that allowed the conviction. Not a psychical breakthrough. The evidence had been collected. Tecnology allowed prosecution.

Yes, murderers had been convicted before DNA testing. They had also gone free before DNA testing.

Let me ask the concurrent question: Were murderers convicted based on psychic evidence before DNA testing?

[SteveGrenard]

Is there some reason beyond the need to use personal attack to deviate from the facts in this case and the weakness of the investigator's (e.g. Youens and Stumpy) case to refute the information given by the medium 18 years earlier?

In the beginning we saw attempts to deny the crime took place, then that the medium did not exist, then that she did not give this evidence to a UK Police officer and what it contained. This was quickly put to rest as an absurd and futile attempt to silence
the matter.

We have seen attempts to discredit, trivialize and minimize Batters. We have seen people like Miss Cleo say he was so unimportant he didn't even testify and quote press reports to back that up. Then when it was conceded he probably did testify,
it was about his discovery of the crime scene, body etc. and not
the encounter with Holohan. This was responded to but
ignored. Batters could not testify aboutHolohan unless he was asked to. If his superiors at the time decided to ignore that evidence it was quashed then and there by these people (e.g. Lundy et al).

We then saw total denial of the pullover evidence. Then we got backsliding on this with more questions attached which the
purevyors of the anti-pullover argument cannot answer. Neither can we but no doubt there is someone who can.

DNA technology is a two way street. It can pin the murder on a suspect by finding the suspects DNA on the victim and it can pin the murder on the suspect by finding the victim's DNA on the suspect (e.g. or the suspect's clothing, as in the pull over).
Mark Tidwell does forensic DNA work now, if he's around, would he agree to this? Would both be better than one?

No one has substantively argued the 120 or 130 points of information provided by Holohan but instead rely on two or three known errors in her reporting of the communication. The weight of evidence is on Holohan's side of the scale. We heard that all of these 120+ points of information were public knowledge when Holohan gave her information to Batters and Officer X but, as the final published study of the encounter will prove, this could not have been the case.

I am afraid the case against the veridicality of Holohan's reporting of the communication falls flat but I and others including Keen are still willing to be convinced. We need more substantial evidence than that offered so far, not suppositions, not could be or possibles or total dismisal based on personal attacks or innuendo.

Let me know when you have something and I will do likewise.

[SteveGrenard]

Garette: They were able to defend their actions during the investigation as consistent with good policework and the preservation of individual liberties insofar as they are protected in the UK (said because I don't know the equivalent laws regarding warrants and such in the UK).


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing the police did at the time resulted in the conviction of Ruark. The proof of that: he was not charged or convicted of the crime for 18 bloody years! Are you serious?
Batter's bosses (e.g. Lundy) IGNORED Holohan's evidence; they took it with a grain of salt, they trashed it. It meant nothing to them. You would do the same, Claus would, Ed would, Cleo would...... tell me you would seriously consider it or not? This is a fact.

The forensic evidence, blood, fluid and tissue samples, from the victim was collected and preserved by the Medical Examiner. Period. If you want to credit the police for the work done by
the forensic pathologist (who is not a policeman, he is a medical doctor) go ahead but you are giving credit where credit does not belong.

The forensic evidence from the suspect was collected by the police from the suspect's garbage can, and thanks to Batters, was
preserved. I am talking here about the pull over. No, he didn't know nor did anybody know that any of that evidence would be of value 18 years later as a result of DNA technology. But it was. Thats what is important. And that's what vaidates the assertions of Holohan.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

We have seen attempts to discredit, trivialize and minimize Batters. We have seen people like Miss Cleo say he was so unimportant he didn't even testify and quote press reports to back that up.

Steve, please do not twist my posts. I have been asking whether Batters testified at least 10 times without getting a definite answer.

I quoted the press reports you provided and you know very well why I did that.

To show that the Police was represented in court ( so the testimony of the police officers was very relevant ) but from what we know it wasn't Batters who testified.

When somebody reads Batter's article he gets the impression that he was the key officer in the case and that the case was solved by the info Hollohan provided... so it's normal to pose questions.

My question was simple: Has the key officer testified in court?

Why is that difficult for you to understand it?

Also, why Hollohan didn't use this case as a publicity for her psychic powers? Is she that humble?

[SteveGrenard]

Garette:
Let me ask the concurrent question: Were murderers convicted based on psychic evidence before DNA testing?


No one is arguing that the suspect, Ruark, was NOT convicted based on the DNA evidence. For the upteenth time he was. He absolutely was convicted based on DNA ervidence. What is being argued is the fascinating co-incident of a medium having provided 120 to 130 points of information on the case, almost all of which save for two or three items, was correct which indicted the suspect 18 years before the DNA did so in court. What is more important is that evidence was given in an interview with two police officers (Batters and Officer X-I know his name but for some reason he does not want to be named here so I respect that) a few days after the murder. It was carefully written down by these officers, well Batters principally but witnessed by X, and
preserved. It was ignored as, no doubt, B.S., by Batters' superiors
such as Lundy. At the time Batters even would have ignored it as B.S. as well although he subsequently learned that everything he recorded save for a few uncheckable items (at the time) was
correct.

YES ..Holohan had no relevance in Ruark's eventual conviction. Ruark was not hard to find when they were ready to charge him with the 18 year old murder based on DNA .... as he was in jail for something else when this happened.

No one is claiming Holohan's evidence helped convict Ruark. It did not. Absolutely. Any assertion to the contrary is a red herring to defer attention from the co-incident ocurrence of Holohan having provided information which indicted him without DNA evidence. However clearly evidence derived from a psychic was, is and probably always will be in-admissible. It is too unreliable. Like
lie detectors and other types of evidence, it is not given any weight in a judicial proceeding. No one is arguing against this.

[juninho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Somebody told me Holohan was working at RAF Northolt, and then as a medium. I asked you quite civially if you were aware of this FACT? You said you were NOT. I thank you for your answer but I am dissapointed that any attempt by myself to obtain information or ask questions is met with the very stereotypical tactic of turning the question on its end and making it into a statement of FACT by the person who asks the question. If you cannot see the simple logic in this then I apologize for any confusion you may have endured by my attempt to ascertain information from you. I will refrain from doing so in the future.


No you didn't, Steve. You quite categorically stated that it was a FACT that Holohan was working at the RAF in a mediumistic capacity. I quote:


Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability?


So, is this true or is just conjecture. What ARE the FACTS?

Simply question, simple answer required.

[SteveGrenard]

Cleo: Also, why Hollohan didn't use this case as a publicity for her psychic powers? Is she that humble?

I can't opine as to Holohan's humbleness. However her information was given as a confidential ... if the reason is not apparent to you, I am sorry. She was concerned that Ruark or one of his pals would kill her next.

Cleo, does that make sense?

[juninho]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Somebody told me Holohan was working at RAF Northolt, and then as a medium. I asked you quite civially if you were aware of this FACT? You said you were NOT. I thank you for your answer but I am dissapointed that any attempt by myself to obtain information or ask questions is met with the very stereotypical tactic of turning the question on its end and making it into a statement of FACT by the person who asks the question. If you cannot see the simple logic in this then I apologize for any confusion you may have endured by my attempt to ascertain information from you. I will refrain from doing so in the future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No you didn't, Steve. You quite categorically stated that it was a FACT that Holohan was working at the RAF in a mediumistic capacity. I quote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, is this true or is just conjecture. What ARE the FACTS?

Simply question, simple answer required.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I can't opine as to Holohan's humbleness. However her information was given as a confidential ... if the reason is not apparent to you, I am sorry. She was concerned that Ruark or one of his pals would kill her next.

Where does she say this? If she was concerned of being killed, why didn't she go to the police for protection?

Steve, you are coming up with more and more desperate claims here, without backing up any of them.

[SteveGrenard]

I am sorry and apologized to Stumpy for any way I worded my question to him regarding a bit of trivia he would've known had
he gone through the paper trail with accuracy. There are no
further facts than that. There are many minor points in such
notes which any evaluator would be aware of, and which serve
as a test of sorts. I should have just asked him outright. Mea culpa.

I understand now that neither he nor Yuens actually saw first hand copies of the Holohan interview with Batters and Officer X
so they were not in posession of all the information seen by
Playfair and/or Keen. I understand also that perhaps by me posting this thread early they may've felt required to respond prematurely. I will now defer to further developments and allow
more time for these chores as they are time consuming and we all have other lives to lead while simultaenously attempting to debate this subject.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will now defer to further developments and allow more time for these chores as they are time consuming and we all have other lives to lead while simultaenously attempting to debate this subject.

Once again, Steve Grenard is pulling his energies back.... :rolleyes:

[Stumpy]

Steve

First we now have a concession that Batters "possibly” could have testified in court afterall.

And you will continue to get concessions where anything that we report in not correct, I will acknowledge ANY error reported. This contrasts with the avoidance and evasion employed by you and Keen in matters where you are in error.

There is another reason why no evidence was given by or about Holohan. The information that she gave had no bearing on the case whatsoever. Please try and explain what new evidence she provided and how it influenced the direction of the case.

Good, we have an admission that the discarded pullover does exist or, rather, than Youens and Stumpy do not assert it did NOT exist. This is contrary to what were lead to believe before.

No you drew an incorrect inference (again), it is interesting that you are the only person to have come to this erroneous conclusion. The original article by Tony Youens explicitly states that Lundy recalled the pullover being recovered. The exact time that it was recovered is yet to be resolved, however the recovery of that sweater was recovered and retained as part of the normal Police process, the recovery and retention of that sweater was in no way a consequence of the "information" provided by Holohan. Furthermore Lundy is emphatic that the sweater yielded no DNA evidence, DCI McKInlay concurs. The ONLY DNA evidence came from the body of the deceased. The retension of of all exhibits that may yet yield forensic evidence in an unsolved murder is "STANDARD PRACTICE" if not a legal requirement. Are you seriously suggesting that without the intervention of Batters, Lundy would have simply returned the sweater to the prime suspect at the conclusion of the initial enquiry??!? The idea that a beat officer performing administrative duties could overrule a Det Supt in charge of a murder enquiry to insist on the retention of an exhibit is, frankly, laughable.

The pullover was brought up because Batters recalled it as important, that when it was retrieved, he felt it should be held as evidence, etc.

So Batters felt that a garment, that could yield forensic evidence and was seized from the prime suspect should be held as evidence? I think my 6 year old nephew could have reasonably made this decision.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing the police did at the time resulted in the conviction of Ruark. The proof of that: he was not charged or convicted of the crime for 18 bloody years! Are you serious?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Everything the detectives involved in this investigation did at the time resulted in the later conviction of Ruark. The proof of that: the probity and thoroughness of the original investigation team stood the test of time, aolowing them to achieve a conviction 18 YEARS LATER. Are you serious?

Batter's bosses (e.g. Lundy) IGNORED Holohan's evidence; they took it with a grain of salt, they trashed it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing Batters told Lundy of what Holohan had said was not already known. Nevertheless Lundy to not ignore or trash it. Lundy identified the fact that there was one crucial piece of missing evidence that could help with the enquiry i.e the location of the missing jewellery. Lundy tested Holohans claims by getting Batters to ask Holohan about the missing jewellery. She was unable to devine this piece of informataion which co-incidentally, was the only piece of informtion not known. This is hardly "ignoring" or "trashing" the info of Holohan is it?

The forensic evidence from the suspect was collected by the police from the suspect's garbage can, and thanks to Batters, was
preserved. I am talking here about the pull over. No, he didn't know nor did anybody know that any of that evidence would be of value 18 years later as a result of DNA technology. But it was. Thats what is important. And that's what vaidates the assertions of Holohan.

LOL! Only Batters thought to preserve the pulloever from the prime suspect?!? Okay Steve, whatever.

was carefully written down by these officers, well Batters principally but witnessed by X, and
preserved. It was ignored as, no doubt, B.S., by Batters' superiors
such as Lundy

Are you sure about this? The officers wrote down the information at the time is was related to them? We have read how Holohan wrote down at least some of the information - remember the mispelled "Ickenham" and the name "pokie". How much did she write down and how much did Batters write down, and more importantly when? You again unjustly malign Lundy, he didn't ignore Holohan's information, he, in fact, put it to the test. SOP!

No one is claiming Holohan's evidence helped convict Ruark. It did not. Absolutely.

Yet Keen originally said this in the previous thread

The psychic's account appeared in a police officer's dated notes, are part of the evidence in the case at the time

Don't you see some sort of conflict between those two statements? In any event there is no record of Batters notes appearing in the case papers, Lundy never saw them. The first McKinlay knew of them was following the publication of the PolFed article, he checked the case papers, the notes weren't there.

I understand now that neither he nor Yuens actually saw first hand copies of the Holohan interview with Batters and Officer X

So, we haven't been given the same notes as Keen and Playfair?!? Why have we been given different notes? How many notes are there?

understand also that perhaps by me posting this thread early they may've felt required to respond prematurely. I will now defer to further developments and allow
more time for these chores as they are time consuming and we all have other lives to lead while simultaenously attempting to debate this subject.


You requested this process, you are now bailing out!?!

Stumpy

[CFLarsen]

Stumpy,

Yup, Steve is pulling out. Excellent skeptical analysis of yours.

Now, could you write this up for an article for SkepticReport? :)

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy: And you will continue to get concessions where anything that we report in not correct, I will acknowledge ANY error reported. This contrasts with the avoidance and evasion employed by you and Keen in matters where you are in error.


To which Keen has replied to me this morning as follows. Bear in mind that Batters was unavailable for reasons you
are fully aware of; Keen was at a conference last week and will be going abroad on Tuesday. Nonetheless I have the
following from him: (P.S.: Nobody is bailing out of this until it is settled):


"I have just seen your latest reply, and don't disagree with it. However I would prefer it - and frankly it would avoid the further risk of misunderstanding or duplication - if you left it to me to respond to the several charges, accusations, assumptions and misrepresentations in the correspondence from Shaw
and Youens.

"I have now spoken to Tony Batters, who has been awaiting Youens' response to Batters' invitation to see him and inspect the evidence (which, of course, he ought to have done before launching this ill-advised crusade), but I need to
make one or two more inquiries, hopefully on Monday, before preparing what I hope will be a pretty comprehensive answer. However, I go abroad on holiday crack of dawn on Tuesday, and the matter will have to rest until after my return, when I doubtless will have plenty of other more immediate matters to deal with.

"All I can tell you at the moment is that the answers to Youens and Shaw's criticisms should suffice to show how vigorously and with what folly they have been grasping the wrong end of the stick." (Keen)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------But I will answer in general terms anyway:

Stumpy says: There is another reason why no evidence was given by or about Holohan. The information that she gave had no bearing on the case whatsoever. Please try and explain what new evidence she provided and how it influenced the direction of the case.

Stumpy you are still failing to get the message of this case. It is NOT and never has been about Holohan providing "evidence"
at the time which could be used to charge and convict Ruark. It is about the fact that here was a murderer who, after 18 years,
was charged and convicted on the basis of physical evidence (DNA). Holohan provided information on this case several days after the crime. She provided 120-130 points of information, all save three or four of which were found to be correct or veridical
after she gave this information. Since you nor I have examined the inventory of these points we cannot debate them one by one or even en masse. We can only point to them en masse. Are you now saying that you know what each of these 120 to 130 points of information are and they absolutely do not have any truth or relevance to the case?

The information she gave had no "bearing" on the case because of its source, not because it was not correct. The fact that Batters' superiors chose to ignore them also does not mean that they are not correct. Also it was not claimed she provided "new" evidence and I am not sure what that means. She did not provide evidence at all. She provided information which was ignored because it would be inadmissible due to its source. I know of no medium ever whose mediumistically obtained information has been admitted into evidence in a court proceeding in the U.S. or the U.K. If this were the case anybody can come to the police and say:

"I am a medium. The victim told me XYZ killed them so go arrest, charge and convict them."

It just doesn't work that way and you should, of all people, know that. People are convicted of such crimes based on eyewitness testimony, confessions and physical evidence.

I will reserve any further comments on the issue of the pull-over
until both Keen and Yuens are satisified about what is the truth.

Stumpy replies:Wrong, wrong, wrong. Everything the detectives involved in this investigation did at the time resulted in the later conviction of Ruark. The proof of that: the probity and thoroughness of the original investigation team stood the test of time, allowing them to achieve a conviction 18 YEARS LATER. Are you serious?


Okay so let me get this straight. "everything" the detectives did lead to the conviction 18 years later. Is this the normal
time frame to obtain a conviction in the U.K.? Geez, I thought it was the DNA evidence and advances in DNA
technology coupled with the samples obtained from the victim by the forensic pathologist who is not a policeman
that resulted in the conviction. Now I am confused. I am sure everyone involved from Batters on up followed the
book and did as much as they could but clearly at best it was ancillary to the DNA basis for the conviction. If
not, surely Ruark would've been serving a life term a lot sooner than 18 years after the crime.

Stumpy replies: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing Batters told Lundy of what Holohan had said was not already known. Nevertheless Lundy to not ignore or trash it. Lundy identified the fact that there was one crucial piece of missing evidence that could help with the enquiry i.e the location of the missing jewellery. Lundy tested Holohans claims by getting Batters to ask Holohan about the missing jewellery. She was unable to devine this piece of informataion which co-incidentally, was the only piece of informtion not known. This is hardly "ignoring" or "trashing" the info of Holohan is it?

On the first part of this response, I again refer to the inventory of 120 to 130 pieces of information and ask how you
know (other than Lundy) ALL of this was already known a few days after the crime. Mediums get what they get, and
in this case Holohan claims to having gotten information that the deceased allegedly gave her. The deceased is not
likely to know what the living person who murdered her did with her jewelry so it is not surprising that Holohan was
unable to provide this information. As a detective I am sure you have surmised it was fenced and, if unusual, melted
down and cashed in. Although I am sure we are not talking about the crown jewels here. BTW Stumpy do you know why Ruark stole
this jewelry?


Stumpy: Are you sure about this? The officers wrote down the information at the time is was related to them? We have read how Holohan wrote down at least some of the information - remember the mispelled "Ickenham" and the name "pokie". How much did she write down and how much did Batters write down, and more importantly when? You again unjustly malign Lundy, he didn't ignore Holohan's information, he, in fact, put it to the test. SOP!

Now you are not serious. Spelling errors, eh? Oh my. Even living people make those! Do you believe people get smarter after they die? Or is this an expectation on your part if survival were a proven fact? I have seen this ridiculous mind-set beforeWho made the spelling errors anyway?

Holohan. Mediums hear and see telepathically. They do not
necessarily spell what they hear or see correctly.


The Lundy test, as you elaborate above, was with respect to what Ruark did with the loot after the fact. Holohan's claim is that the deceased came to her with respect to the details of her murder, who killed her, his car, etc. Frankly Holohan would not be expected to know this and didn't. You (and I) need to see that list to determine the strength of your assertion regarding these points of information.

Don't you see some sort of conflict between those two statements? In any event there is no record of Batters notes appearing in the case papers, Lundy never saw them. The first McKinlay knew of them was following the publication of the PolFed article, he checked the case papers, the notes weren't there.

Geez, now I am confused. I thought Lundy "tested" as "SOP" Holohan (see above) after Batters reported her information to him? Did he or didn't he?

I wonder how this failed to appear in the case papers? Did Lundy decide what went in and what stayed out and decided
this stayed out?

Of course if McKinlay knew nothing about it at the time, and just learned about it from the article, and then went to check for himself, why would he find those notes if they were kept out by somebody beneath him?


Stumpy: So, we haven't been given the same notes as Keen and Playfair?!? Why have we been given different notes? How many notes are there?

Now I am confused. First you implied you saw Batters' notes, then when I asked you questions about certain trivial
aspects of those notes you said you guys haven't seen them but plan to, and now you are saying you have seen them and
are questionning whether there are different notes? Pretty good. So have you or haven't you seen Batters' original notes?
I think not...

[Ed]

My goodness we digress, do we not?

To summarize the salient points:

1) A murder was commited 18 years ago
2) The police did a commendable job of investigation (I say this because the chain of evidence, and the evidence itself was intact 18 years later)
3) They, at the time could not indite (that is the term here at least) the most likely suspect
4) 18 years after the fact, DNA evidence was proven to be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

Now, ancillery points:

1) A psychic talked to a cop at the time

Irrelevant points

1) Batters testified or did not. Who cares, with regard to the psychic anything he said would be hearsay and inadmissable.
2) He found, retained or otherwise was involved with a piece of clothing. This clothing may or may not have the source of the DNA.
3) Batters held some, an important or no position vis a vis the investigation
These and other points have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and relate more to the ability/integrety of Keen, who is now reporting on the events.

Issues regarding the paranormal

1)When did the "psychic" talk to the cops?
2)Did she, at that time, or later, provide any information that the cops did not know? This is a yes or no.
It does not matter who testified in what capacity or anything else regarding the mechanics of the case. This is the key issue. Did she know anything that the cops did not. If not, we have a lot of arm waving about a non-issue. If so, we have something interesting.

Issues regarding Keen
1) Everything else not germane to the point immeadiately above. What in the name of god does it have to do with anything whether Batters was a beat cop or superintendent of police except insofar as it impeaches Keen as a reporter, his "peer" reviewers if they publish drek, and anything else Keen works on.

Two issues gentlemen: Keen and the psychic. One has nothing to do with the other.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Holohan provided information on this case several days after the crime. She provided 120-130 points of information, all save three or four of which were found to be correct or veridical
after she gave this information. Since you nor I have examined the inventory of these points we cannot debate them one by one or even en masse. We can only point to them en masse. Are you now saying that you know what each of these 120 to 130 points of information are and they absolutely do not have any truth or relevance to the case?

This is the only issue

The information she gave had no "bearing" on the case because of its source, not because it was not correct. The fact that Batters' superiors chose to ignore them also does not mean that they are not correct. Also it was not claimed she provided "new" evidence and I am not sure what that means. She did not provide evidence at all. She provided information which was ignored because it would be inadmissible due to its source. I know of no medium ever whose mediumistically obtained information has been admitted into evidence in a court proceeding in the U.S. or the U.K. If this were the case anybody can come to the police and say:

"I am a medium. The victim told me XYZ killed them so go arrest, charge and convict them."

It just doesn't work that way and you should, of all people, know that. People are convicted of such crimes based on eyewitness testimony, confessions and physical evidence.

I will reserve any further comments on the issue of the pull-over
until both Keen and Yuens are satisified about what is the truth.


This is all arm waving ******** (and we have all waved our arms, steve). Admissability, ignored, not ignored, pullovers, all mean nothing. The only issue is what she said when. How this stuff was reported is a Keen issue

Okay so let me get this straight. "everything" the detectives did lead to the conviction 18 years later. Is this the normal
time frame to obtain a conviction in the U.K.? Geez, I thought it was the DNA evidence and advances in DNA
technology coupled with the samples obtained from the victim by the forensic pathologist who is not a policeman
that resulted in the conviction. Now I am confused. I am sure everyone involved from Batters on up followed the
book and did as much as they could but clearly at best it was ancillary to the DNA basis for the conviction.

I think Stumpmeister is right here. If the cops did not do their jobs exceptionally well there would be no admissable DNA evidence. Again, this is irrelevant to the point.

On the first part of this response, I again refer to the inventory of 120 to 130 pieces of information and ask how you
know (other than Lundy) ALL of this was already known a few days after the crime.


THIS is the point

Mediums get what they get, and
in this case Holohan claims to having gotten information that the deceased allegedly gave her. The deceased is not
likely to know what the living person who murdered her did with her jewelry so it is not surprising that Holohan was
unable to provide this information. As a detective I am sure you have surmised it was fenced and, if unusual, melted
down and cashed in. Although I am sure we are not talking about the crown jewels here. BTW Stumpy do you know why Ruark stole
this jewelry?

This is arm waving BS



Now you are not serious. Spelling errors, eh? Oh my. Even living people make those! Do you believe people get smarter after they die? Or is this an expectation on your part if survival were a proven fact? I have seen this ridiculous mind-set beforeWho made the spelling errors anyway?

No comment

Holohan. Mediums hear and see telepathically. They do not
necessarily spell what they hear or see correctly.

Not the point

The Lundy test, as you elaborate above, was with respect to what Ruark did with the loot after the fact. Holohan's claim is that the deceased came to her with respect to the details of her murder, who killed her, his car, etc. Frankly Holohan would not be expected to know this and didn't. You (and I) need to see that list to determine the strength of your assertion regarding these points of information.

Ahhh ... the point rears it's head

Geez, now I am confused. I thought Lundy "tested" as "SOP" Holohan (see above) after Batters reported her information to him? Did he or didn't he?

Hell, it ducked again

I wonder how this failed to appear in the case papers? Did Lundy decide what went in and what stayed out and decided
this stayed out?

Of course if McKinlay knew nothing about it at the time, and just learned about it from the article, and then went to check for himself, why would he find those notes if they were kept out by somebody beneath him?

Not the point


Now I am confused. First you implied you saw Batters' notes, then when I asked you questions about certain trivial
aspects of those notes you said you guys haven't seen them but plan to, and now you are saying you have seen them and
are questionning whether there are different notes? Pretty good. So have you or haven't you seen Batters' original notes?
I think not...

Not the point.

Comeon guys, focus. We are killing electrons with every post

[/B]

[SteveGrenard]

ED: 1) A murder was commited 18 years ago.

YES


ED: 2) The police did a commendable job of investigation (I say this because the chain of evidence, and the evidence itself was intact 18 years later)

We can be sure they did a great job ...just not good enough to pin it on the guy but certainly good enough to withstand the test of 18 years in storage. This happens. They are called cold cases and there are plenty of them.

ED: 3) They, at the time could not indict (that is the term here at least) the most likely suspect

Nope. (see above)



ED: 4) 18 years after the fact, DNA evidence was proven to be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

Yup.

ED: Now, ancillary points:

1) A psychic talked to a cop at the time

Yup.

Irrelevant points

1) Batters testified or did not. Who cares, with regard to the psychic anything he said would be hearsay and inadmissable.

Exactly.

2) He found, retained or otherwise was involved with a piece of clothing. This clothing may or may not have the source of the DNA.


To be decided.

3) Batters held some, an important or no position vis a vis the investigation. These and other points have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and relate more to the ability/integrity of Keen, who is now reporting on the events.

No they do not. You are correct.

ED: Issues regarding the paranormal

1)When did the "psychic" talk to the cops?

Two days after the crime was comitted. Not clear as to dates. There were additional encounters as well. This needs to be stipulated more precisely.


ED: 2)Did she, at that time, or later, provide any information that the cops did not know? This is a yes or no.

It's not yes or no because we here do not have all the information she provided. We only have the word of Lundy on this or at least I think we do. Via Youens and Stumpy.


ED: It does not matter who testified in what capacity or anything else regarding the mechanics of the case. This is the key issue. Did she know anything that the cops did not. If not, we have a lot of arm waving about a non-issue. If so, we have something interesting.

Exactly. Each of her 120 points of information, dated, need to be checked against what she could've known from normal means (newspapers, neighborhood gossip). Youens and Shaw have not demonstrated that.


ED: Issues regarding Keen

1) Everything else not germane to the point immediately above. What in the name of god does it have to do with anything whether Batters was a beat cop or superintendent of police except insofar as it impeaches Keen as a reporter, his "peer" reviewers if they publish drek, and anything else Keen works on.

ED: Two issues gentlemen: Keen and the psychic. One has nothing to do with the other.



Ed, Can we really kill electrons ? You gotta show me how to do this someday.

[Garrette]

Steve, you astound me.

You are exactly like a character in one of Mark Twain's funnier books (embarrassingly, I can't remember the exact title, "An American Abroad" or somesuch).

He talks about a man who debates most infuriatingly because you argues his point with passion and vehemence for the longest time until at some point well into the debate, he somehow switches to the opposite position, then argues it and when you agree (because you've held the same position all along) walks away in triumph.

You have done that in this thread.

First, this case is great evidence of a psychic solving a crime.

Then all the details which, as Ed points out, are ultimately irrelevant to the original claim.

Then retreat on the details while berating those who pointed out the errors to begin with.

Now you're saying that this case isn't about Holohan solving the crime, just about some telepathic ability maybe.

On top of that, you're saying you don't even know about that because you haven't even seen the 120 of 130 statements.

Amazing.

Let me save you some time. Time you could have saved if you'd paid attention to some earlier posts.

Read Batters' article again. List the things he says Holohan said. It's not the whole 120, but it is enough to get a feel for what Batters must have thought was most impressive.

None of what he lists, none of it, is indicative of telepathic ability.

Beyond that, notice (I ask, undoubtedly futilely, again) the discrepancies in Holohan's methods. The nightly visitations as compared to the self-induced trances.

And finally, please explain Keen's talk about the spirit of the victim being upset in light of Hurst's and JE's and everybody else's representation of spirits as always content.

[SteveGrenard]

Garrette: First, this case is great evidence of a psychic solving a crime.

And still is. She gave this information two days or whatever after the crime, and it was ignored and it took 18 years to convict the person she said did it. And if it were not for advances in DNA technology, both her information and the killer, would be unknown to us today. Oh, and yes, he would be free.

Then all the details which, as Ed points out, are ultimately irrelevant to the original claim.

They are irrelevant but who brought them up? I think you better go back and look at who I was refuting and why.

Then retreat on the details while berating those who pointed out the errors to begin with.

And LOL you are doing it again, pointing out errors which are irrelevant. Do I have to go back and kill more electrons or are we agreed those points are irrelevant to the case?

Now you're saying that this case isn't about Holohan solving the crime, just about some telepathic ability maybe.

It's actually never been about anything else. It's about Holohan providing information she claims she obtained from communication with the deceased naming her killer, his car, the details of her demise, etc and many other points that have not been revealed to Youens or Shaw as well as myself. Holohan did not "solve" the crime. This is not about solving a crime. Its about a deceased person allegedly communicating with a medium giving her details which did solve the crime but which the police (e.g. Lundy) could not accept because of its source. And this is completely understandable.


On top of that, you're saying you don't even know about that because you haven't even seen the 120 of 130 statements.



I have never said I have seen them all or are even aware of all of them. Where did you get this from? Keen has shared some of them with us previously and with me by private e-mail so I can claim having seen only a few of them. And neither has Stumpy or Youens seen all of them.

Read Batters' article again. List the things he says Holohan said. It's not the whole 120, but it is enough to get a feel for what Batters must have thought was most impressive.


Obviously he was constrained by space and other limitations which you cannot be made aware of and I say this without any
motive for being less than forthright and you will have to accept this. I agree the items he highlights in the article are probably among the most startling and evidential for him as they should be.

None of what he lists, none of it, is indicative of telepathic ability.


Do you know what IS indicative of telepathic ability so you can make a logical comparison? My understanding is that you feel nothing is indicative of it. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I reiterate we need to see the collection of all 120 to 130 points to make a thorough analysis.

Beyond that, notice (I ask, undoubtedly futilely, again) the discrepancies in Holohan's methods. The nightly visitations as compared to the self-induced trances.

I cannot speak for Holohan or how she gets her information or whether these are discrepancies as you choose to characterize them or SOP for her. Frankly if she got her information by trancing, dreaming, concentrating, scrying, tuning out or tuning in, or whatever you choose to call it, it is irrelevant as well. This subject is a topic on another entire thread with respect to JE. I am sure it is of interest but it is not related to the validity of the information she provided.


And finally, please explain Keen's talk about the spirit of the victim being upset in light of Hurst's and JE's and everybody else's representation of spirits as always content.

edited to add: irrelevant digression.........

I would like to but I am not Keen. Nor can I make a valid comparison with the sorts of contacts JE or Hurst allegedly make and that of a woman who was JUST brutally raped and murdered by a person who was then and who remained free for 18 years after that. I do not recall any JE or Hurst transcript involving a rape/robbery/murder victim so soon after their death coming up. Does anyone else? I recall one JE case of a young man whose parents were in the gallery who was murdered by a Salavadoran drug gang member who had fled the country and JE advising the parents nt to get involved in his appehension. The mother said she was thinking of going down to Salvador, tracking him down and having him apprehended. That's the only case I can recall JE having had on TV that comes close to this but the circumstances were entirely different and the victim was obviously more interested in keeping his mother out of harm's way then her going down to Central America and trying to get his killer.

Heck if I were a spirit and saw my killer go free, JE and Hurst notwithstanding, I'd be pissed. But since I am not there yet, I can only speculate how I would feel if I will "feel" anything at all. If spirits exist I think it would be naive to characterize them all as at rest and content.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Ed
My goodness we digress, do we not?

To summarize the salient points:


Well said!

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Garrette: First, this case is great evidence of a psychic solving a crime.

And still is. She gave this information two days or whatever after the crime, and it was ignored and it took 18 years to convict the person she said did it. And if it were not for advances in DNA technology, both her information and the killer, would be unknown to us today. Oh, and yes, he would be free.

This is not evidence of a psychic solving a crime; even disregarding any skepticism about the claim, it is at most evidence of psychic ability. I don't see that any part of the process used to eventually convict Ruark would have happened any differently if Holohan had never said anything.

Holohan did not "solve" the crime. This is not about solving a crime.

Um, agreed. But then why do you state immediately above this that it still is good evidence of a psychic solving a crime?

[SteveGrenard]

FJ: This is not evidence of a psychic solving a crime; even disregarding any skepticism about the claim, it is at most evidence of psychic ability. I don't see that any part of the process used to eventually convict Ruark would have happened any differently if Holohan had never said anything.

Correct.


FJ: Um, agreed. But then why do you state immediately above this that it still is good evidence of a psychic solving a crime?

Because nothing she could've provided, and in fact nothing any psychic/medium could provide would meet any standard for admissible evidence in a court of law in the U.S. the UK and probably most other constitutional countries governed by the rule of secular law.

Thus she did not solve the crime by such a standard, she did not provide any information that resulted in a conviction. However there has been considerable debate, in fact in other threads here and elsewhere, about the subject of mediums and psychics "providing information to help solve crimes" which would be a better choice of words than merely just "solve." This case is interesting because we have a police officer who has gone on record, taken down a medium's information in a specific instance and then had the gumption to publish it in a journal circulated to his fellow law enforcement brethren. It involves a case where a large number of specific points (120 to 130) were involved and documented (Yes, I know, we dont have these yet) and where a conviction ocurred 18 years after the fact which confirmed the medium's statement.

We need to look at this case in the absence of hyperbole, silly irrelevancies as Ed pointed out and on the narrow focus of facts concerning the medium's information. We need to rule out or
prove she got this information through normal channels. We cannot do that without knowing all the 120 to 130 points plus what she could have possibly been aware of from public sources two days after the crime barring of course that she was directly involved in the case and got her information that way. This is a fear many mediums express about local cases ...that they be implicated in them physically in some way. One of the striking things about this case and its detractors is that they repeat that there was nothing the medium provided that the police didn't already know. I am not sure if there was absolutely "nothing." But of many of the points she revealed to the police many were already known to them but these were not known the public. This enabled Batters and his associate X to assess some of the information rapidly.

[Ed]

Good. We are being orderly and that warms the cockles of my catholic school heart.

One very important point regarding testimony. We must bear in mind that Batters did not (forget whether he actually could have) testify under oath, with the specter of the power of the state over him in the event of purgery, to anything regarding this alleged medium. With all the talk of a capitol case and courts of law and all, let us not forget that, in the absence of corroberation, anything that Batters says is not worth a bucket of warm spit, cop or no cop.

I want the contemporanious notes regarding the 130 points, or whatever, that were handed in at the time of the events in question. A cop making false statements regarding an investigation would have dire consequences here and I suspect our cousins would take an equally dim view of such behavior. Those documents DO have the power of the law behind them. If all we have are unwitnessed notes or recollections we have nothing.

I trust that we can agree on that.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Ed
Good. We are being orderly and that warms the cockles of my catholic school heart.

ED: One very important point regarding testimony. We must bear in mind that Batters did not (forget whether he actually could have) testify under oath, with the specter of the power of the state over him in the event of perjury, to anything regarding this alleged medium. With all the talk of a capitol case and courts of law and all, let us not forget that, in the absence of corroberation, anything that Batters says is not worth a bucket of warm spit, cop or no cop.

In order for Batters to have introduced the interview he had with medium on the witness stand, the examining attorney for either side would have to ask him about it. He could not expound on this himself. Therefore, if he was not asked anything about this subject he could not perjure himself. Batters interview with Holohan IS liable to corroberation because if he was asked:

about the interview with the medium, and then asked if
there was a witness to it, he would have had to answer yes.

He did NOT interview the medium alone. He did so in the presence of another police officer whom we have been calling X.
(I am not sure if X's first name is Tony or not, however).

ED: I want the contemporanious notes regarding the 130 points, or whatever, that were handed in at the time of the events in question. A cop making false statements regarding an investigation would have dire consequences here and I suspect our cousins would take an equally dim view of such behavior. Those documents DO have the power of the law behind them. If all we have are unwitnessed notes or recollections we have nothing.

The note taking was witnessed (see above) and from what Stumpy says they were handed over and "tested" by Tony Batters' boss, Tony Lundy. At least Lundy is alleged to have Batters or whomever go ask Holohan about the missing jewelry ...if I got this right from Stumpy somewhere above.
This then was the "test," she failed........ and the interview
apparently filed. It would not be admissible anyway.

I agree we need to see those 130 points of information before assessing the legitimacy or non of the information provided by the medium. Right now all we seem to have is an opinion by Youens from Lundy that there was nothing in there he (Lundy) recalls which the police didn't already know. As I also pointed out even if the police knew every stitch of those 130 points of information, how much did the public, and thus Holohan know through normal means?


I trust that we can agree on that.

Yup.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard




(I am not sure if X's first name is Tony or not, however).






.

I'm not sure that you have to be a psychic to ferret out another brit named Tony:D

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy: 1. Holohan provided information that could only have come from the deceased in the manner that she claims.

2. The informtation provided by Holohan contributed towards the conviction of Ruark.


To Q. 1 .. that would be my assumption based on what I know so far about this. However I think we all agree we need the inventory of 120 to 130 individual points of information to assess this more thoroughly.

To Q.2. ...I have said this repeatedly, no, nothing Holohan provided contributed to the charging and conviction, 18 years after the crime, of Anthony (Pokie) Ruark.

I have to leave to the hospital for a few hours so I will wait to you finish your thoughts (see end of your post which was posted twice BTW--you can delete one if you want) before addressing anything further. So far your information looks very interesting and its the first any of us have been exposed to some of this.

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

I'm afraid i'm rather losing the train of your thoughts. First, you agree with Garrettes statement that "this case is great evidence of a psychic solving a crime." Then you appear to contradict this when you reply to Garrettes statemetn that "Now you're saying that this case isn't about Holohan solving the crime, just about some telepathic ability maybe."

Can we try and distill this into two seperate issues?

1. Holohan provided information that could only have come from the deceased in the manner that she claims.

2. The informtation provided by Holohan contributed towards the conviction of Ruark.

Can you clarify if that is your position?

If so let me deal with poinit 2 first. Put simply, if Holohan hadn't contacted Police, Ruark would still have been arrested and the conviction obtained. The sweater is a red-herring in many ways. The sweater would have been recovered and retained even if Holohan had not contacted Police (bear in mind that Lundy and McKInlay dispute that it yielded any DNA that was used in evidence). If Holohan had described the clothing worn by her attacker and told Police where to find said clothing that would have been significant. Neither the clothing or location was given by Holohan (at least neither detail appears in the notes that I have). Her contact with the Police is incidental. Her intervention may have impressed Batters, but in no way influenced the decision making of Lundy or McKinlay (who was unaware of her information) or caused any police action in any form that contributed to the investigation and conviction. I hope that clarifies our positon in relation to Holohans role in the investigation and conviction. Put simply: there was none.


Obviously the means by which Holhan obtained her information is of great interest here. A piece of crucial and piviotal detail is missing, our efforts to clarify this with DC Batters have been unsuccesful to date. No where is it explicitly stated that Batters took notes at the time and during the interview with Holohan. At the moment it seems to be an unchallenged assumption. Why do we query this? Tony Youens and I are in possession of three sets of typed up notes that were apparently prepared in "Sept 2001". We have not (yet) been able to view the original handwritten notes (you aware of part of the reason for this). Interestingly the typed up notes are headed thus: "1st Police Interview with Christine Holohanon or about 17.2.1983". The phrase "on or about" is a common Police term used to signify that the notes are NOT contemporaneous i.e taken at the time. It is absolute, basic, fundamental Police Practice to commence a note taking process by recording the time and date that the process starts. The phrase is employed when writing up notes of a meeting taken on a previous date. The typed up notes do not state, for instance "1st Policde Interview with Christin Holohan commencing 11.30 hrs on Thursday 17.2.83". If it is the case that the notes were written on a date AFTER the interview with Holohan we are then in the realms of not judging the accuracy of Holohan's information BUT the accuracy of Batter's recall. The Courts have recognised the fallibility of human memory, they simply will NOT allow the use of notes not taken at the time of, or immediately after, any particulay event. Apparently officer X has apparently signed an affadavit confirming the accuracy of the notes. However officer X is being asked to confirm the accuracy of notes apparently written up after the event of an interview that took place some 15 YEARS EARLIER! Now here's the thing, pay attention. Holohan apparently wrote down a lot of the information given to her during her trances. These notes were never submitted to the enquiry, DCI McKinlay cannot locate them because they are still in the possession of Batters. When the Polfed article was published DCI McKInlay was made aware of the contents. He read the article and was, quite rightly, concerned about the absence of original notes provided during the murder investigation. He was sufficiently concerned to launch an internal investigation into the whereabouts of the notes. Batters had retired so McKinlay interviewed officer X about the whereabouts of the notes. Officer X DENIED ALL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NOTES PROVIDED BY HOLOHAN!

We do not dispute that an interview involving officer x, Batters and Holohan took place. We are very anxious about the accuracy of the notes provided in respect of the notes. We do not allege that Batters or officer X have done anything wrong whatsoever. Batters has never alleged (to our knowledge) that he took the notes at the time of and during the interview with Holohan and then submitted them to the enquiry.

In respect of the information given by Holohan:
To fully comprehend this you have to understand the dynamics of a major enquiry and the effect it has on the local community - this is not something either you, Keen or Batters has had any experience of, I, on the other hand have extensive experience in such matters.
Within a major enquiry Police officers merely gather information. The information exits already, the Police task is to locate and secure that informtion. Obviously the Police task is made harder by the reluctance of witnesses to come forward for a variety of reasons. This is counterbalanced by an opposing force: GOSSIP!
The sole topic of conversation in the pubs, over the garden fence, in the supermarket in a community that has had the misfortune of a murder in its midst will be the murder itself. Information flows into the murder enquiry but it also flows out to friends, neighbours, the old woman at the bus-stop etc. We believe that it is significant that Holohan lived in the same borough as the murder victim. It is certain that the main topic of conversation within the Ruislip community during the aftermath of the murder would have been gruesome crime itself. Someone close to the family of the deceased gets to know the details of the event. It's natural that the family would want to discuss this with those close to them. The recipient of the information then find themselves in the enviable position of knowing the inside track of the hot topic of conversation within the area. It would take exceptional fortitude NOT to disclose what you knew. There are any number of routes that the information could have reached Holohan, living as she did, in the same borough as the deceased. Did she do private readings for anyone who lived close to Poole? Did she know Poole herself?? Did she know Ruark??
Bear in mind that this took place before the proliferation of the internet. The cold/war/hot reading techniques were not widely known at that time. Such a technique I can well imagine would create an impression on a PC eager to come up with that nugget of information to crack the case. The impression that a bit of Hot reading created would easily lower the defences of Batters to a spot of cold reading (unconcious body languadge would allow Holohan to home in on a hit). We do not claim that this is definately what happened, Keen challenged us to come up with a non-paranormal explanation, we have now done so. There are alternative explanation that are possible. One of those possibilities is that Holohan demonstrated supernatural contact with the deceased Jaqui Poole - possible yes, likely....err no.

regards

Stumpy

[Ed]

So there is nothing unquestionably contemporaneous?

Is this Keen guy mad?

We might have to rely on lost "contempory" notes of a medium?

There is nothing here (if the above is accurate) and further discussion is simply an exercise in mutual masturbation.

Ah. The wonders of the mysterious psychic world.

Tell me Officer Stumpy, if you went into a criminal proceeding with this kind of stuff, how far would the Justice kick your butt? Would it hit that Battleship moored across the Thames or would you clear it?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy


We do not claim that this is definately what happened, Keen challenged us to come up with a non-paranormal explanation, we have now done so. There are alternative explanation that are possible. One of those possibilities is that Holohan demonstrated supernatural contact with the deceased Jaqui Poole - possible yes, likely....err no.



It is extraordinarily unlikely that a person of Ms H.'s honesty, integrity and sense of public spirit and duty would go to such unreasonable lengths to provide such detailed and accurate information. There is no motive, no history, no rational reason. None, what so ever. But there is evdence that she has a history of mediumship / psychic ability and there is evidence of her integrity and public duty.

(BTW, you forget, in your arrogance and repeated appeal to your own authority, Stumpy, that the "community" would actually know better than the police themselves about how local incident information gets passed around. We, you seem to forget, are the community and therefore have far more experience than an outsider like the police to speak on these matters.)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy




Yoo-hoo. There is no evidence. Now you are making something up out of whole cloth.

I know. Just keep insisting.

[Lucianarchy]

TALKING TO: ...Christine Holohan


CLAIRVOYANT, psychic, fortune teller are all words which conjure up images of colourful tents at fairgrounds with mysterious, veiled ladies and their crystal balls. But the fact is that this image could not be further from the truth.

Last week I spoke with Christine Holohan who dispelled many of my preconceptions. Christine, who lives in Stradbally and operates in Tara Court in Portlaoise convinced me, the eternal sceptic, that she does possess a calling, a meaningful and considerable vocation. How do you explain a woman who tells you things about your family, your past and future which she could not have known about. I was definitely converted.

How does Christine cope with my type of scepticism? “I honestly don’t believe that people are sceptical but they have a fear of the unknown, this is something they don’t understand. When you understand everything you are doing you are in control but when you come up against something that is not part and parcel of your everyday life you tend to shy away from it.”
http://archives.tcm.ie/laoisnationalist/1999/10/02/story4229.asp

[Ed]

Get real Luci and brush up on your reading skills. No one said she was a fake, simply that the events do not lend themselves to any evaluation of her purported prowess.

[lofgoernost]

Steve,

Thanks for using the Quote feature - it definitely makes the posts clearer.

[Dogwood]

Steve,

I'll say it again. You do more for skepticism than the rest of us combined. Keep up the good work!

[Stumpy]

Okay, we have just recieved the following explantion of the note taking from Tony Batters. He states that the notes were recorded contemporaneously in his personal notebook as opposed to an official Police notebook. He states that typed versions of the notes were prepared and submitted to the enquiry. He conceeds that he may well have not recorded the date on the notes. He retained some manuscript documents, some by accident. He is not certain what date the meeting took place with Holohan, hence the typed notes he prepared based on the originals referring to the interview "on or about 17.2.83". It still doesn't quite explain why officer X denied any knowledge of the notes scribbled by Holohan when asked about them by DCI McKinlay. Also the typed notes are not evident in the case papers.

Clearly those notes couldn't be relied on in a court of law. However, I recognize, that the current debate is not in a court of law, any reasonable information should be looked at objectively (IMHO). I suspect that this is an issue that could be argued about ad infinitum. My personal point of view is to take Batters word, I don't think that he has done anything other than report the facts from his perspective and to the best of his recollection, if he is now stating the notes were taken at the time I am willing to accept that pending any information to the contrary. So rather than get bogged down in issues surrounding the notes which, frankly, will probably never be resolved definitively, it's probably more useful to move onto the issue of how Holohan came by her information.

I am of course assuming that everyone is now in agreement that the information provided by Holohan in no way contributed to the conviction of Ruark?

The issue of the notes leaves me in a slight dilemma. There is information of a private nature contained within them which I certainly wouldn't divulge. Also although provided by Batters, having been prepared by him, they are not rightly mine to divulge.
I will speak to Tony Youens about this, there is a possibility of getting to see the "original" handwritten notes in the near future.

regards

Stumpy

[Dogwood]

Steve drew my attention to this post via PM. My apologies for commenting on it late.


Originally posted by SteveGrenard

DNA technology is a two way street. It can pin the murder on a suspect by finding the suspects DNA on the victim and it can pin the murder on the suspect by finding the victim's DNA on the suspect (e.g. or the suspect's clothing, as in the pull over).
Mark Tidwell does forensic DNA work now, if he's around, would he agree to this? Would both be better than one?


Yes, and no. I only hesitate due to the phrasing of the term "pin the murder on a suspect". DNA evidence is primarily used to place the suspect at the scene, or to demonstrate that a victim and a suspect have had contact, it cannot, (at least in my limited experience), prove that a murder took place or that the suspect was the murderer in itself. Though, depending on the nature of the DNA and it's source(s), this will be quite compelling to a jury.

But I get the impression that Steve was speaking conversationally and didn't mean for his statement to be taken quite so literally. Please pardon the nit-picking, I just wanted to be clear.

To answer the last question, yes. Both situations, (victims DNA on suspect, and suspects DNA on victim) would be preferable to just one.

[SteveGrenard]

You surmise correctly regarding speaking conversationally. The source of the DNA is certainly relevant. Semen or fluid from vaginal swabs in someone who was raped, victim bloodstains on a garment of the killer when the manner of death causes blood splatter and so forth. Don't want to get too gruesome here but presumably this is what you are talking about. So you are saying that mere presence of traces of DNA, especially at a crime scene where the suspect may have been for legitimate purposes, is not sufficient.

Thanks for responding Mark. I knew you were interested in this case.

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You surmise correctly regarding speaking conversationally. The source of the DNA is certainly relevant. Semen or fluid from vaginal swabs in someone who was raped, victim bloodstains on a garment of the killer when the manner of death causes blood splatter and so forth. Don't want to get too gruesome here but presumably this is what you are talking about.

Precisely. Since the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, I've noticed that the news tends to refer to DNA as if it came off or out of peoples bodies by itself. "DNA was found on the victim...", but that DNA could come from blood or semen or hair or skin under a fingernail. And as you point out, some sources will be more significant than others depending on the case at hand.


So you are saying that mere presence of traces of DNA, especially at a crime scene where the suspect may have been for legitimate purposes, is not sufficient.

Depends. A typical example for me is just because we found a suspects sperm on a victims vaginal swab, it doesn't mean by itself that a rape took place, as the sex may have been consensual. And just because we didn't find sperm, it doesn't mean that a rape didn't take place, as the suspect may have used a condom or may have been vasectomized. It's up to the attending physician to record and document additional facts (bruises, tearing, etc) and up to the detectives to uncover corroberating evidence. Finally, the jury, or perhaps the grand jury, will determine how significant the DNA evidence is. But very few cases are won or lost on DNA alone.

It is primarily used for identification and placement purposes and can never determine intent, motive, or actions.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You surmise correctly regarding speaking conversationally. The source of the DNA is certainly relevant. Semen or fluid from vaginal swabs in someone who was raped, victim bloodstains on a garment of the killer when the manner of death causes blood splatter and so forth. Don't want to get too gruesome here but presumably this is what you are talking about. So you are saying that mere presence of traces of DNA, especially at a crime scene where the suspect may have been for legitimate purposes, is not sufficient.

Thanks for responding Mark. I knew you were interested in this case.

Steve, what has any of this got to do with Holohan?

The DNA that convicted Ruark was found on Jacqueline Poole's clothing - from the BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1459056.stm) There were miniscule amounts of semen on Mrs Poole's clothes and, although insufficient for normal DNA matching, it was put forward for a new procedure called Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA typing.

From the same link - Ruark admitted he had known Mrs Poole but said no more - until a few weeks before his trial, when he suddenly admitted having sex with her on the night of her death.

He claimed he had left her alive and well.

DCI McKinlay greeted Ruark's new statement with a wry smile. Faced with the DNA evidence, a desperate Ruark had changed his story but the experienced detective was confident the jury would see through it.

They did. Ruark is doing life. Unless you've got something new to tell us I suggest its time to say "case closed".

[Lucianarchy]

The main issue here is the accuracy of Ms H's interviews. These have not been refuted past unfounded supposition of dishonesty. Completely unfounded. The pseudo-skeptics keep ignoring this, jumping from denial of events, reportage issues, title splitting straw men etc,. In fact, anything, but refute the accuracy of Ms H. She is an honest woman with a history of public spirit and public duty.

This goes right back to my first post on the Police and Psychics thread, and yet here we are, all the pseudo-skeptic supposition remains completely unfounded and the case completely unrefuted.

Case closed? I think you will find this is the opening of a major chapter in the understanding of science.

[Dragon]

Case closed? I think you will find this is the opening of a major chapter in the understanding of science.

Luci, I am at a total loss for words.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Dragon


Luci, I am at a total loss for words.

OK, no problem.

There is no rational, reasonable mundane explanation for Ms H's accuracy, past suppositions of dishonesty. There has been a lot of clucking about side issues by pseudo-skeptics and a lot of withdrawn and innacurate claims. Yet we still remain with the fact that Ms H's accuracy remains completely unrefuted, as in the first post of the Police and Psychics thread initiated many moons ago.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

There is no rational, reasonable mundane explanation for Ms H's accuracy, past suppositions of dishonesty. There has been a lot of clucking about side issues by pseudo-skeptics and a lot of withdrawn and innacurate claims. Yet we still remain with the fact that Ms H's accuracy remains completely unrefuted, as in the first post of the Police and Psychics thread initiated many moons ago.

But I thought that all parties accept that abosolutely nothing which came out of Ms H 's interview was not already known to the police. Scope for cold reading surely? How can you rule it out?

Are you seriuosly suggesting that there is no possibility of a mundane explanation for how she may have learnt details of the case given that she was a resident of the area in which the crime was committed?

As to the accuracy of the notes of the interview, that too seems now to be under question. They are apparantly 'personal' notes, written up at some unspecified time after the interview. The officer who made the notes wasn't even able to say what date the interview took place on! Do you not accept that there can be question marks over the accuracy of these notes in such circumstances?

Also, a bit of stretch to say that Ms H's accuracy remains 'completely unrefuted'. Remember she got the date of the murder wrong. She made contradictary statements about when the victim contacted her. She contradicted herself about being 'told' information but then apparrently had to enter a trance to repeat it.

The one piece of information that she was asked to verify which the poice did not alredy know, ie the loaction of the jewelry, she was not able to get right.

Many facts of this case were not known to all of us when the old thread was started. The more we learn about the case, the less convincing it seems as an example of true psychic ability.

Case closed only to the closed minded.

[SteveGrenard]

Received the following from Chris French, Editor of The Skeptic (UK) and more than pleased to include the URL for this publication
although belated. There are additional follow-ups being developed in this case and they will be reported here as well as in The Skeptic(UK).


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You (sg note: Tony Youens on his site and myself, here at JREF) are both welcome to publish them on relevant web sites, provided the Skeptic is credited .......and a link to:

www.skeptic.org.uk


would be much appreciated!.

Steve, you refer to "Montague Keen Comments" - was that in TS or elsewhere? (sg note: That was in an e-mail to Chris from Keen on 24 Apr (w copy to me) and I assume is that which is going to be published in the next The Skeptic (TS)-UK.)

I think that deals with everything?

Best wishes,
Chris

************************************************** *******************
Prof Christopher C French
Head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit
Department of Psychology
Goldsmiths College
London SE14 6NW

[Stumpy]

Thanks for the update Steve, by way of return: Tony Youens and I have been speaking to more people and doing further research, whilst we await Keen's promised response to events thus far. Hopefully we will be able to complete our enquiries in the next week or so and build upon our "hot reading" hypothosis. We are reluctant to publish the notes provided to us by Batters without his authority. For the moment no contact is possible with Batters, it may be that Keen already had consent to publish these notes. Obviously they are a key element of the investigation, the challenge from Keen being to establish a non-parnormal explanation of how Holohan was able to provide the facts.

regards

Stumpy

[SteveGrenard]

M. Keen is abroad right now so this will have to wait for his return....... so that the issue of the notes as well as his latest response can be dealt with. I guess we are in a holding pattern so to speak.

Steve

[Dogwood]

Keen might be a little busy responding to Randi's latest commentary anyay.

[SteveGrenard]

First, some general thoughts about sceptical criticisms of the supposed paranormal: it is prudent and rational to look for normal explanations, and both fair and desirable to follow the general precept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof. And there can be no disputing that the Jacqui Poole case is extraordinary, although not for the reasons most sceptics would accept. It is extraordinary in the abundance and impressiveness of the evidence of paranormality, and the poverty of alternative explanations. It is not extraordinary as apparent evidence of discarnate communication, since the literature supporting this is vast, and widely ignored or neglected.

Secondly, the methods used by determined sceptics to criticise such cases have been recognised and exposed for 120 years: they are to ignore the best and concentrate on the least impressive pieces of evidence; to disparage the competence or sometimes question the sanity of the investigators; to misrepresent or distort what they cannot accept or account for, and to divert the issue into one of their own choosing, which is what has happened in this case, as I will show.

What makes their task so difficult to square with the norms of rational debate and scientific objectivity, to say nothing of plain honesty and integrity, was apparent a century ago when the deceased George Pellew, communicating through Mrs Piper, recognised and gave intimate details about a very large number of his earthly friends and relatives: here the critics were forced to dismiss as mere telepathy what appeared to be evidence of survival.

No such option is allowed to the determined sceptic. If it were, we could have a civilized debate evaluating the competing merits of the two hypotheses: communication from the dead or telepathy from the living. But since this admission is not allowed it follows that the critic must account for all the information transmitted by a medium as based on prior knowledge or cold reading, or both. A study of the evidence in this case exposes the absurdity of any such claim. Hence the critics' subtle twist of the plot, so that the debate turns on the extent to which, if at all, the retrieval of the murderer's pullover was or was not a factor which influenced or even determined the successful prosecution of Ruark. This is clearly of great interest, but the outcome in no way affects the principal issue: did Holohan give genuine and meaningful evidence about the circumstances of the murder which she could not have acquired normally.

Now let me come to specifics:

Tony Batters was a detective for many years both before and after the Poole case. and is currently a civilian detective employed by the police. There was a brief period when, for administrative reasons, he was in uniform while attached to a CID murder squad, but this makes not the slightest difference to the role he played during the investigation.

Batters was principal in the sense that he was the officer deputed to investigate when the victim's non-response to calls was first reported to the police; it was he who broke into the apartment and spent five hours making notes; it was he, accompanied by Detective Andy Smith, who responded to Holohan's offer to provide information and kept notes of the interview. It was never suggested that he was actually in charge of the murder squad, but he worked closely with Lundy, the officer in charge who (contrary to the firm belief of "Stumpy", aka Detective Adrian Shaw, of whom Tony Batters and his colleagues have never heard, and who had nothing to do with the murder squad involved in the case), interviewed many of the suspects himself.

Furthermore, it was Batters who kept his fingers on the huge volume of papers which accumulated, and it was he who was in the witness box at the eventual trial for two days. He was the only police officer to be in attendance throughout the trial. DCI McKinlay, who, of course, had nothing to do with the original inquiry in 1983, and could not have been expected to know anything about Holohan's evidence (which is what our Report is about), was not regularly at the trial, and had no need to be.

My statement that Batters recovered the pullover was a minor error which I immediately corrected, as Professor French will confirm. It is difficult to believe that Youens was unaware of this — not that it matters one whit who collected the pullover.

I never asserted that Batters' notes were part of the evidence at the trial. On the contrary, it is obvious that, since a deceased entity cannot give evidence, statements made by a medium would be regarded as inadmissible. It is therefore astonishing that Youens should have asked why the evidence obtained from Holohan was not discussed in the court proceedings. I was not aware that the notes from the Holohan interview were typed up and "submitted to the enquiry" but perhaps this was just routine. Whether "enquiry" refers to police records or to the court proceedings 18 years later is not clear, and doesn't really matter.

Nor is it clear what is meant by "Officer X" having denied any knowledge of the notes scribbled by Holohan. Officer X is presumably Detective Sergeant Andy Smith who accompanied Batters and who has signed a statement confirming the accuracy of our account. That account refers to and reproduces the single page on which the medium wrote when in semi-trance. There were no "notes" made by her. This was the page containing, among other matters, the name "Pokie" which Smith, with local knowledge, recognised as the nickname of Ruark.

The issue of the pullover is another red herring. Despite Detective Superintendent Lundy's recollection of what took place twenty years earlier, the facts are that Ruark, one of a large number of suspects who were male and likely to be known to the victim (since there was no sign of forced entry), had provided the police only days before the Holohan interview with a persuasive alibi, when the crucial matter of times was backed by a couple of his drinking partners. Although well known as a thief, Ruark had no record of violence.

Despite any current, and understandable, claimsby police to have been completely self-sufficient in the decision to focus on Ruark, it was at least partly in consequence of the profound affect the Holohan interview had on the two police officers that Lundy, who was otherwise satisfied with Ruark's alibi, ordered a search to be made of Ruark's apartment, where the discarded pullover was removed. Had he not acted promptly the pullover may well have been lost to the rubbish tip. As for the relevance of the pullover in securing a conviction, see below.

Further evidence that this was the order of events is seen from Lundy's order for gardens to be dug up, presumably in the hope of retrieving the missing jewellery. This arose entirely from the scribbled message written in semi-trance by Holohan in response to further questions by the police officers. As will be seen from the facsimile we shall be reproducing in our report, in addition to the word "Pokie", the medium had written "garden" , as well as a number and a name which, at the time, meant nothing to the detectives. Only eighteen years later, when puzzling over his retrieved notebook and the mysterious message, did Batters conclude that this might well have been the medium's attempt to identify the place where the jewellery was temporarily hidden (there were good reasons why Ruark would not have wished to take it home, or to hand it to his usual fence). What transpired was a brilliant piece of detective work which confounds those who argue that Holohan's message was valueless. But you will have to await details in our paper.

It is said that Lundy has refuted the statement that Pokie was not at the time of the Holohan interview a prime suspect. He has done nothing of the sort. Refutation is disproof. He has relied upon a less than perfect memory to deny the statement. For someone whose proud claim it was never to have failed to solve a murder, it is perfectly understandable that recollection of these events should have been slightly remoulded. There is still a strong dislike of acknowledging that mediums could ever play any role in a police investigation. The report that DCI McKinlay also refutes this is even more misleading: the fact is that he was not involved in the case in 1983 and would be most unlikely to have any knowledge of the details of interrogations of scores of people as part of the murder squad's duties.

As for the value of the evidence from the pullover, it is in no way material to the question of the accuracy of statements made about the murder by the medium. However, contrary to the suggestion put about that either there was no pullover or that, if it existed, it played no part in the evidence, forensic witness Nick Boyall, who at the time of the pullover-retrieval was Jim Fraser's assistant, gave evidence relating to the pullover, and Jim Fraser confirmed it.

Now for Batters' notes. They were made during the interview, as Holohan was speaking (It is barely conceivable that they would have been put together in any other way). They were in his writing, using abbreviations as normal when shorthand is not used, and have been inspected by Guy Playfair, my wife and myself. They played no part in the trial.

I have made no reference to what appears in the public files and court records. We have not reviewed any such records. They seem to me to be of little if any relevance to the issue under discussion: did Holohan convey accurate evidence to the police which she could not have known by any normal means

There is clearly some dispute about Ruark's status as a prime suspect before the Holohan interview. While I prefer to rely upon the evidence of the man most intimately involved - and for a lengthy period - in the minutiae of this case, I must emphasise that it really has no bearing on the case, even if it suggested that the CID publicly voiced their suspicions within days of the murder, so that they came to Holohan's ears and thereby enabled her to discover, e.g. that he had a tattoo on his body, or that he had been recently engaged in an insurance swindle — a fact which remained unknown to the police until long after the event; or that the dead woman had visited her boyfriend in "bird" a fortnight previously, the boy friend also being a friend of Pokie .... - or indeed scores of previously unknown details which sceptics have been unable to explain.

Detective Shaw, your insatiable correspondent, appears to assume that "everyone is now in agreement that the information provided by Holohan in no way contributed to the conviction of Ruark." I have previously explained, and must firmly reiterate, that there are good reasons why it may well have done. Without it, there would have been no reason to retrieve the pullover. Remember that Ruark, unlike the other twenty four or so suspects, had not only gone voluntarily to the police but had an alibi supported by two witnesses, and no record of violence. The pullover was a garment retained for forensics, and it showed exchanges of blood and saliva from her to him. This was strongly suggestive of an act of violence, as opposed to the consensual intimacy, which was Ruark's defence claim at the Old Bailey trial. This evidence was aided both by the failure of the two original alibi supporters to give evidence in Ruark's favour, and by his claim to have had an earlier sexual relationship with Poole at a date when the police were able to show that he was at a football match.

In sum, the detailed information given by the medium, some of it unknown to the police at the time, and some of it not confirmed until 18 years later, is impossible to write off as cold or hot reading; and it is an affront to common sense to go on pursuing that vain argument or seeking to divert interested readers away from the essential issue of paranormality.

[RonSceptic]

From Keens reply...

This was the page containing, among other matters, the name "Pokie" which Smith, with local knowledge, recognised as the nickname of Ruark.

..snip....

impossible to write off as cold or hot reading


Why couldn't Holohan have any local knowledge?

Is it really 'impossible' that hot reading occurred? Is it really 'impossible' that a person living in the vacinity of the crime could not obtain details of the victim, the suspects and the crime?

Is it really 'impossible' that there was any cold reading? After all I am sure that everyone must agree that at least some of the information was already known to the interviewer at the time. That's how cold reading works, Feed off what is know and represent it.

[Prester John]

How did the ghost (whatever) of the deceased not know what day she was murdered on?
Its not likely that anything more significant happened on that day is it?

[Prester John]

Its already been said but the way to determine what happened is to get a list of the 130 items mentioned and compare it to what was known by the local community and what was known by the interviewing policeman/men. If there are items on the list that cannot be accounted for by both these mechanisms then there maybe something worth a closer look.

All else is irrelevant.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
From Keens reply...

This was the page containing, among other matters, the name "Pokie" which Smith, with local knowledge, recognised as the nickname of Ruark.

..snip....

impossible to write off as cold or hot reading


Why couldn't Holohan have any local knowledge?

Is it really 'impossible' that hot reading occurred? Is it really 'impossible' that a person living in the vacinity of the crime could not obtain details of the victim, the suspects and the crime?

Is it really 'impossible' that there was any cold reading? After all I am sure that everyone must agree that at least some of the information was already known to the interviewer at the time. That's how cold reading works, Feed off what is know and represent it.

Hot reading would have been impossible? Would either of the officers present have been aware of the nickname? Is it impossible that she had overheard them discussing the case and heard the name mentioned? Is it impossible that a police officer mentioned the name to her deliberately before she wrote the note - for example when they spoke to her about her "communication" and simply didn't remember having done so or was never asked if they had done so? Is it impossible that she overheard a message on one of the officers radios mentioning the name?

Unless you can say that ALL of these (and several other options) are impossible (not unlikely, improbable or anything else) - and say the same for all the possible methods by which she may have obtained the knowledge other than from the police, then it is utter nonsense to say hot reading is impossible.

[Ed]

Back to basics.

The cop took allegedly contemporanious notes, right?

Contemporanious when?

What was in the press and what was potentially known to the "psychic" prior to this interview?

The notes were transcribed and dated some time "later"

How much "later"?

It seems that there is a fair case to be made for either the "psychic" to have gotten some information or for the cop to have been less than accurate, particularly since he knew that he was dealing with a "psychic" in the first place.

I submit that this information is sullied and has no significance whatsoever.

[RonSceptic]

Is it not also true that Holohan claimed that the spirt contact occurred after the crime was reported in the local press? Hard to rule out at least some element of hot reading surely? The interview clearly took place many days after the crime.

Do we even know the exact date of the interview? We don't know for sure when the notes were typed up.

[Ed]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
Is it not also true that Holohan claimed that the spirt contact occurred after the crime was reported in the local press? Hard to rule out at least some element of hot reading surely? The interview clearly took place many days after the crime.

Do we even know the exact date of the interview? We don't know for sure when the notes were typed up.

This is why this information is so flawed.

[FutileJester]

Hi Steve (and Keen?).

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

It is therefore astonishing that Youens should have asked why the evidence obtained from Holohan was not discussed in the court proceedings.

I don't think this is so astonishing. We know the notes themselves could never be evidence. But the claim seems to be that Holohan's information led to evidence which was used in trial to aid in convicting Ruark. It is entirely possible (I would almost say a certainty, short of legal malpractice) that the defense counsel would challenge the probable cause which led to this evidence. If the police were led to evidence that they would not have found without Holohan's evidence, then I would fully expect Holohan to come up in court proceedings.

it was at least partly in consequence of the profound affect the Holohan interview had on the two police officers that Lundy, who was otherwise satisfied with Ruark's alibi, ordered a search to be made of Ruark's apartment, where the discarded pullover was removed. Had he not acted promptly the pullover may well have been lost to the rubbish tip.

Did Lundy apply for a search warrant based on Holohan's statements? If so, that should be listed on the warrant application. Or was a warrant already issued and Lundy gave new instructions regarding what to look for?

Further evidence that this was the order of events is seen from Lundy's order for gardens to be dug up, presumably in the hope of retrieving the missing jewellery. This arose entirely from the scribbled message written in semi-trance by Holohan in response to further questions by the police officers.

Again, I presume there was a warrant to dig up the gardens. Did the warrant state that the probable cause for the search was the scribbled message from Holohan?

However, contrary to the suggestion put about that either there was no pullover or that, if it existed, it played no part in the evidence, forensic witness Nick Boyall, who at the time of the pullover-retrieval was Jim Fraser's assistant, gave evidence relating to the pullover, and Jim Fraser confirmed it.

Ah, good. If the pullover was referenced in court, that should be in the trial transcripts, right? Are trial transcripts available to the public in the UK?

Detective Shaw, your insatiable correspondent, appears to assume that "everyone is now in agreement that the information provided by Holohan in no way contributed to the conviction of Ruark." I have previously explained, and must firmly reiterate, that there are good reasons why it may well have done. Without it, there would have been no reason to retrieve the pullover.

I can see that it is remotely possible that Holohan contributed to Ruark's conviction without ever appearing in court documents. Possible, but it seems to me unlikely. If she led to evidence that would not have otherwise been found, then her name would almost have to come up as part of questioning the evidence chain. I can't say that lack of mention in court documents means she did not help; but perhaps you can see that it would be much more convincing to see her contribution be a matter of public record rather than a matter of he said/she said.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by FutileJester


I can see that it is remotely possible that Holohan contributed to Ruark's conviction without ever appearing in court documents. Possible, but it seems to me unlikely. If she led to evidence that would not have otherwise been found, then her name would almost have to come up as part of questioning the evidence chain. I can't say that lack of mention in court documents means she did not help; but perhaps you can see that it would be much more convincing to see her contribution be a matter of public record rather than a matter of he said/she said.

Obviously, messages purported to come from a third party are 'hear-say' and not admissable.

I believe these days (not sure about then) the police could choose to provide the prosecution evidence that they recieved their initial directions from an anonymous source. Theoretically, an operations protocol could exist which provides ( for any medium the police want to work with ) a route for legally anonymous intelligence directions.

Perhaps 'Stumpy' can confirm this?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Obviously, messages purported to come from a third party are 'hear-say' and not admissable.

I believe these days (not sure about then) the police could choose to provide the prosecution evidence that they recieved their initial directions from an anonymous source. Theoretically, an operations protocol could exist which provides ( for any medium the police want to work with ) a route for legally anonymous intelligence directions.

Perhaps 'Stumpy' can confirm this?

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-rights-of-suspects/police-powers-to-search-premises/search_of_premises_under_a_mag.shtml

To obtain a warrant, police need to go to a magistrate and satisfy them that there are reasonable grounds to believe they will find relevant evidence. This is not a court procedure and I do not know if hearsay evidence would be admisssable. In any event I'm not sure we have hearsay evidence here. We have an individual saying they know where something can be found. That is not hearsay.

I think it is a very reasonable question to ask on what basis the warrant authorising the search which found the jumper was made. If it makes no reference to the "psychic", then she played no part in the finding of the jumper.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-rights-of-suspects/police-powers-to-search-premises/search_of_premises_under_a_mag.shtml

To obtain a warrant, police need to go to a magistrate and satisfy them that there are reasonable grounds to believe they will find relevant evidence. This is not a court procedure and I do not know if hearsay evidence would be admisssable. In any event I'm not sure we have hearsay evidence here. We have an individual saying they know where something can be found. That is not hearsay.

I think it is a very reasonable question to ask on what basis the warrant authorising the search which found the jumper was made. If it makes no reference to the "psychic", then she played no part in the finding of the jumper.

1. Intelligence purported to come from another source is 'hear-say'. Passing messages from spirits is 'hear-say'. It does not stop the police from acting on that intelligence though. Neither is anything to stop the medium from phoning or writing in the intellegence anonymously.

2. I don't believe the police need a warrant to fish something out from the rubbish bins outside of your house, although I may be wrong.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


1. Intelligence purported to come from another source is 'hear-say'. Passing messages from spirits is 'hear-say'. It does not stop the police from acting on that intelligence though. Neither is anything to stop the medium from phoning or writing in the intellegence anonymously.

2. I don't believe the police need a warrant to fish something out from the rubbish bins outside of your house, although I may be wrong.

1. Can you tell me where you get this definition of hearsay from? I am particularly interested in the bit about passing messages from spirits.

2. If the bins are on private property I would have thought they needed a warrant to enter the property. UK courts take a very restricted view of what you can and can't do even with a warrant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1658447.stm

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


1. Can you tell me where you get this definition of hearsay from? I am particularly interested in the bit about passing messages from spirits.

2. If the bins are on private property I would have thought they needed a warrant to enter the property. UK courts take a very restricted view of what you can and can't do even with a warrant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1658447.stm

I believe, theoretically, that 'Spirits' are the Third Party in the intelligence a medium passes on and therefore legally 'hearsay' in terms of evidence. It is up to the investigator is they want to pursue that intelligence though, nothing stopping a medium passing on anonymous intelligence either.

Warrants are only granted when the subject is unlikely to consent; ergo throwing out your jumper into the bins is easily qualified as waiving consent.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I believe, theoretically, that 'Spirits' are the Third Party in the intelligence a medium passes on and therefore legally 'hearsay' in terms of evidence.


Can anyone read this without laughing out loud?

Who actually "theorizes" about this stuff? What data do they fit their "theories" to?

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Obviously, messages purported to come from a third party are 'hear-say' and not admissable.

Yes, the information is not admissable, as I already said (although hearsay is not the reason). It's a question of her information being used as probable cause to issue warrants for evidence which is admissable.

I believe these days (not sure about then) the police could choose to provide the prosecution evidence that they recieved their initial directions from an anonymous source. Theoretically, an operations protocol could exist which provides ( for any medium the police want to work with ) a route for legally anonymous intelligence directions.

My understanding is that the police can cite anonymous informants in applying for a warrant, although it is unlikely that a judge would grant the warrant on the basis of an uncorroborated tip. But in this case the warrant application would still say 'anonymous tip' or equivalent. Also, there is undoubtedly documentation that accompanies someone being afforded the protection of anonymity; is there any documentation that Holohan applied for or was granted this protection?

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
To obtain a warrant, police need to go to a magistrate and satisfy them that there are reasonable grounds to believe they will find relevant evidence.

Thanks Jaggy, this is what I was clumsily getting at; I'm no legal expert even on my side of the pond.

I think it is a very reasonable question to ask on what basis the warrant authorising the search which found the jumper was made. If it makes no reference to the "psychic", then she played no part in the finding of the jumper.

Key point.

[FutileJester]

Western justice systems are rooted in the idea of an open pool of evidence, with opposing counsel who are equally able to examine and challenge all of the witnesses and evidence, and all of the conditions which led to their inclusion in the case. There are undoubtedly some cracks where things which help in a case are not clearly documented, but the general rule is that everything is documented so that the evidence trail is clear.

I want court records. I know this is not supposed to really be about the trial, but again it's a matter of credibility - supporting data in documents of public record are a much stronger case than personal notes and stories. I would never say that lack of mention of Holohan in these records is proof that nothing paranormal happened; but I would say that it seems difficult to imagine how she could have materially aided the prosecution of this case without being officially documented in any way.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I believe, theoretically, that 'Spirits' are the Third Party in the intelligence a medium passes on and therefore legally 'hearsay' in terms of evidence. It is up to the investigator is they want to pursue that intelligence though, nothing stopping a medium passing on anonymous intelligence either.

Warrants are only granted when the subject is unlikely to consent; ergo throwing out your jumper into the bins is easily qualified as waiving consent.

Yeah right - did you read the link? Evidence was thrown out because the person who unplugged the computer that the evidence was found on was not named on the search warrant. You really think that evidence would be admissible if it was taken from a bin on private property without express consent or a search warrant?

[Stumpy]

Keen's comments into the whole sorry saga now take on the appearance of "hot reading". Yes, at the core of this is some information given by a "psychic" which, it is claimed, could only have come from the spirit of the deceased.

However the assertions that Keen has made in this forum in support of that claim are subject of hedging, retreat, downgrading, evasion and futile re-interpretation to try and make the erroneous statements fit in with the FACTS of the case that Tony Youens and I have discovered.

A simple acknowledgement of error wouldn't go amiss, I have repeatedly stated that any errors that I make will be acknowledged swifty so that we can try and unravel this mess.

Bearing in mind the errors and re-interpretation of previously provided assertions, it extremely difficult to identify the source of the errors. Were they Batters? Were they Keen's errors caused by misinterpretation of the information given by Batters or plain assumptions of Keen based on hope or a desire to inflate the status of his source?

The constant revision and re-interpretation of Batters status and role is most revealing. We have moved from an insinuation that Batters was "principal police detective involved" in the case on the original thread. I challenged this assertion in the original Police and psychics thread:

I asked :

Are they maintaining that Tony Batters was the principal detective in the case?

Keen replied (via SG) in the affirmative.

Tony Batters was the principal detective involved. He was part of Lundy's team....SNIP

......I used the expression "principal detective involved" in the sense in which it would be commonly understood

Then in this thread we have the following from SG after speaking with Keen.

I considered Batters, who made the report, and published it in the Police Magazine, as the principal person involved. He interview Holohan did he not? He took down her report did he not?

(note the removal of the word "detective")

Now we have this from Keen:

Batters was principal in the sense that he was the officer deputed to investigate when the victim's non-response to calls was first reported to the police

So from the principal detective in the case we move to principal officer involved in the interview to principal involved in entering the victim's address. Why is this important? Apart from highlighting the failure to put any cohesion to Keen's report, whilst the "principal officer/detective" tag exists it gives credibility to the assertion that Batters was involved in the decision making process of the investigation or able to influence it's direction. Thus the assertion that Batters lobbying for Holohan's veracity thereby ensuring the recovery of the sweater has some credibility.

None of the above reflects the truth. Keen now conceedes that Batters did not have detective status. When I pointed out that Batters was retained on the investigation to perform "administrative duties" there was much hue and cry that I was trying to discredit Batters involvement in the case. Yet, Keen now states of Batters role the following:

it was Batters who kept his fingers on the huge volume of papers which accumulated

Doesn't this fit the definition of "administrative duties"? Perhaps Keen can answer the following? What PRECISLEY was Batters role, what was his title in the investigation? How mamy suspects did he takes statemets from? How many suspects did he interview? If the implication is that Batters was retained on the enquiry for his previous Detective experience, then why was that experience wasted on "keeping his finger on the paperwork"? Answer: he was never assigned to the case to use his former detective skills! When I originally used the phrase "administrative duties" I was using this advisedly. Officers in the enquiry have been far blunter about the description of his role. Everyone who Tony Youens and I have spoken to who were involved in the investigation agree. PC Tony Batters DID play a part in the enquiry but it was very peripheral beyond his initial attendance at the scene. He was not in a position to influence the enquiry or take any decisions in it's direction.

I will deal with some comments that Keen made in his last post before outlining the non-paranormal explanation requested by Keen.

It is not extraordinary as apparent evidence of discarnate communication, since the literature supporting this is vast, and widely ignored or neglected.

...which are mainly anecdotal, as is this case.

My statement that Batters recovered the pullover was a minor error which I immediately corrected,

The assertion was made by Keen in this forum and need correcting by Keen in this forum.

I never asserted that Batters' notes were part of the evidence at the trial

Oh really? In the Police and psychics thread you said:

The psychic's account appeared in a police officer's dated notes, are part of the evidence in the case at the time

Despite any current, and understandable, claimsby police to have been completely self-sufficient in the decision to focus on Ruark, it was at least partly in consequence of the profound affect the Holohan interview had on the two police officers that Lundy, who was otherwise satisfied with Ruark's alibi, ordered a search to be made of Ruark's apartment, where the discarded pullover was removed.

Obviously this statement could have been verified with Lundy by Keen it was not. Tony Youens has spoken to Lundy who is emphatic that Holohan's information did not influence his thinking. The real reason for the sweater's recovery is outlined below.

It is said that Lundy has refuted the statement that Pokie was not at the time of the Holohan interview a prime suspect.

See below for an explanation of how Ruark fitted into the enquiry

However, contrary to the suggestion put about that either there was no pullover or that, if it existed, it played no part in the evidence

That was never stated we have always acknowledged the existence of the pullover, we challenged the assertion that DNA was recovered from it. Blood and fibres may have been recovered from it, but this is hardly conclusive evidence. The conviction rested on the Ruarks DNA being identified on samples taken from the victim's body.

Absolutely, catorgorically Holohan's information played NO role in the recovery of exhibit, the arrest of any suspect of the eventual conviction of Ruark. It may be Batters perception that her information influenced the direction fo the enquiry but that perception is wrong. The direction of the enquiry was directed by Det Supt Lundy, if Keen had bothered to check Batters claim with the ONLY person who could confirm or refute it he would have established this. Lundy is unambiguous:
Holohan's information did not affect the direction of the enquiry.

Clearly Batters says different. The proposition is that because of Holohan's information gardens were dug up and Ruark's address was searched leading to the recovery of the disputed sweater. Obviously the Police would have to have the relevant powers to do this. There are only two ways, a search warrant or search after arrest. In this case other officers in the case tell me that the search leading to the recovery of the sweater was due to the arrest of Ruark. The proposition is therefore that Ruark was arrested due to Holohan's information! Somehow the arresting officers would have to justify arresting Ruark on the word of a Psychic to the suspect, custody officer, the suspect's legal representative and the Court! There simply is no scope in UK Law for such an arrest to be made, any such arrest would plainly be illegal, any house search subsequent to that arrest would be illegal thus nullifying the sweater that was recovered during the search. Do you honestly think Ruarks defence team would have let this matter go unchallenged?

The only reason for Ruark's arrest and subsequent search that lead to the recovery of the sweater is that there were solid grounds for his arrest. I have spoken to the officer who initially interviewed Ruark AND recovered the sweater. He surely is in a better position to give an incite into what lead to each part of the enquiry.

In respect of Ruark it was claimed that he attended the Police station the day after the murder voluntarily to provide a statement. This fosters the impression of a public spirited person walking into the Police station to give his account. My source states that he was the Det Sgt in charge of local liason prior to the murder. He was drafted onto the enquiry. He went to visit the local pubs to see if there was any informtion to be gleaned from these premises. He visited "The Windmill" pub and spoke to a few local people. They named "pokie" Ruark as "someone the police should speak to about the murder". At this point "Pokie" attains the status of suspect. As luck would have it Ruark entered the pub. The grounds for arresting him are a bit thin because the suspicion is pure heresay, effecting an arrest at this early stage causing logistical problems in terms of how long he can be detained for. Under these circumstances it is standard practice to seek the co-operation of the suspect. Ruark was a known associate of Poole, So my source secures the co-operation of Ruark and physically escorts him back to the Police station to Interview him and obtain a statement - Ruark was escorted from the pub in the full view of the customers! Poole's body had been discovered on 13.2.83, Ruark is a suspect and at the Police station being interviewed the following day. As soon as Ruark leaves the station having made a statement every aspect of that statement is investigated. Holes start appearing in his alibi straight away. Background is done on him, he has been seen hanging around Pool's flat and place of work prior to the murder. He is well and truely in the frame before Holohan's intervention. Such are the obvious inaccurracies in his Ruark accounts that it becomes apparent that sufficient grounds to arrest Ruark exist. The purpose of of the arrest would be to enable a search of his premises for any forensic evidence and the jewellery (The location of which crucially Holohah couldn't provide). My source does not remember the precise date when Ruark was arrested and his premises searched resulting in the discovery of the sweater, he is emphatic that it was not due in any way to Holohan's information - it was based on the fact that Ruark's alibi was falling apart under Police scrutiny. These grounds are more than sufficient to satisfy the Custody Officer, Suspect's legal representative and the Court. This was a lawfull arrest and seizure as opposed to the unlawful one proposed in the "Holohan as driving force scenario". So now we have the SIO saying Holohan information did not influence the enquiry and the Det Sgt who seized the sweater saying it was not in any way attributable to Holohan's information. PC Batters, in his peripheral role says other wise!

The Notes: Unfortunately we don't have the permission yet to publish them. I believe the Keen case is that Holohan produced 120 items of seperate informtion that she couldn't possible have known by non-paranormal means yet still provides no evidence for this. What specific statements containing informtion could Holohan not known about? Keen in his original statements played down the fact that the victim and medium lived in Ruislip, highlighting that it was a whole 3 miles between the two addresses and thus the information was not likely to get that far? What is Keen's estimation for how far information does actually carry over a London borough? Yes, the distance between Poole's flat was over 3 miles. However the impetus to the investigation was provided by people in the "Windmill pub" that is where Police first plugged into the "gossip" that I talked about in my previous post. The Windmill pub is only 1.3 miles from Holohan's house!! Two possibilites immediately exist, a young 22 year old girl visiting a foreign country for 3 years is I submit be the most likely type of person to visit the local pubs. Ruislip is one of the upmarket boroughs of London with a very low crime rate. A brutal murder would have been the main talking point accross not just Ruislip but Hillingdon and the ajoining boroughs. Even if for some reason she wouldn't/couldn't leave her flat she was certainly giving reading to people on the estate. People go to Holohan fresh from the pub where they have been hearing the gossip on the enquiry. IF it was the case that Holohan visited the Windmill chances are she would know both Poole and Ruark who were both visitors there. Hence she would be able to provide details about both of them in her subsequent reading to Police.
Poole and Ruark used several pubs in the area (there are only a handfull to choose from). Has Keen definitively, positively proven that Holohan never went to any pubs in the area where she could have obtained the personal information about Ruark and Poole. Has Keen definitively, positively proven that Poole had not had a reading from Holohan or no previous contact between them existed which could explain how she was able to give certain information (such a situation is not necessary for any of the info to be obtained IMHO)
Certainly Holohan gave a description of the Poole's flat. This was situated in a road containing approx 50 - 60 identical flats. Has Keen traced everyone who was living in those flats at the time of the murder and confirmed that Holohan never visted them. A visit to ANY of the flats in that road would allow Holohan to know the layout of the flats.

Even then we can't exclude the possibilty that person's visiting Holohan for private reading were associates of Poole and knew the layout of the flat and unwittingly passed this info the Holohan over tea and biscuits.

Holohan apparently gave detailed information about the scene itself. Although there is still scope for saying that Batters understood the information in a way not intended by Holohan. How on earth could she have known such details? Unfotunately when effecting his entry Batters allowed a member of the family into the scene. That individual, we are told, was only allowed in for "a few seconds". How many exactly isn't known 5? 15? 30? 120? In any event the member of the family certainly would have had an opportunity to see the murder scene in the lounge with the deceased lying on the floor. Can Keen definitively, positively prove that that individual didn't discuss what he had seen outside of the Police murder squad detectives? The natural human reaction would be to talk about this distressing scene - and probably with friends down the pub.

IF this individual wasn't ushered out of the house after a few seconds it still wouldn't account for some of the other detail that Holohan provided. How could this info reach her? Fairly straight forward here. After the body is discovered the house is sealed off, not even family are allowed in, this allows the forensic team to do their thing. Normally this will take a day or so, although sometimes it can take a little longer. After this time the flat is handed back to the family. The only difference between the flat entered by Police and the flat turned over to family is that the body has been removed along with any murder weapon or any relevant exhibit. The scene otherwise is PRECISELY as Police found it, thus the family would know exactly how the scene had looked. Even before the flat was returned to them the family would be getting some feed back from Police on how the enquiry was going. They would also be asked about things of interest found in the house e.g "We found two coffee cups in the kitchen, one was still half full, did Jaqui have a coffee drinking friend that visited on Saturday nights?" OR "We think she was murdered on the Saturday but the newspapers for the last four days were on the floor behind the door, did any of the family visit in those four days" Has Keen spoken to every Police Officer who spoke to the family and discovered what feedback of this nature was given to them, has he proven that the family didn't get told of the details raised by Holohan and then discuss them maybe in the pub or with other people who later went to visit Holohan for a reading and inadvertantly spilled this information?

Additionally there was another person living with Christine Holohan according to the electoral roll. Can Keen definitively prove that this person did not also plug into the local gossip and feed it back to holohan?

It maybe as simple as Holohan using the Windmill pub as it was the pub used by Ruark, Poole and her family, after all it was a mere 1.3 miles away. Under any scenario the fact that Poole lived in the same borough as Holohan can only be significant - Keen downplays this issue, however the close proximety of Holohan to the Windmill where all the impetus for the enquiry came from is harder to ignore.

As previously stated Batters notes are dated "on or about 17.2.83". If we accept that they were made on 17.2.68 this would have been the Thursday after the murder. This is the same day that the local papers are delivered which contained much information about the victim and the murder, the same information was given by Holohan to police on that day! Can Keen not acknowledge this coincidence and accept that it could account for at least some of the info provided by Holohan?

AS Keen stated in his previous post

it is prudent and rational to look for normal explanations.

Well, did you investigate the rational and normal explanation provided above?

I accept that after 18 years it is going to be hard going for Tony and I to prove our assertion. To do so would mean tracing people long since moved and speaking to the family which is just not viable, I am sure they want to put the whole matter behind them. There seems to me only one testible claim in this saga, to whit: Holohan has genuine psychic ability - she is after all now a professional medium. Well let her prove it in controlled conditions which eliminate the hotreading/cold reading hypotosis. A trivial matter which put this matter to rest once and for all.

regards

Stumpy

[Lucianarchy]

Despite all the supposition (what happened to skepticism here?) about deception, there is no rational motive for Ms H. to commit such an act. She has a history of integrity and honesty. She took no credit for her part. Stumpy, you are relying on completely unfounded supposition. If you have any evidence for such a claim, please provide it. This is a skeptic forum, we rely on evidence, most of which is currently in favour of Ms H using a method of data retrievel currently beyond the understanding of science. If you have evidence to test your theory, then please present it. But as a skeptic, you must accept that it remains a theory lacking in supporting evidence, whilst the 'mediumship' theory looks very strong.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Despite all the supposition (what happened to skepticism here?) about deception, there is no rational motive for Ms H. to commit such an act. She has a history of integrity and honesty. She took no credit for her part. Stumpy, you are relying on completely unfounded supposition. If you have any evidence for such a claim, please provide it. This is a skeptic forum, we rely on evidence, most of which is currently in favour of Ms H using a method of data retrievel currently beyond the understanding of science. If you have evidence to test your theory, then please present it. But as a skeptic, you must accept that it remains a theory lacking in supporting evidence, whilst the 'mediumship' theory looks very strong.

There is no evidence of anything. When were the notes taken, when were they transcribed? What was common knowledge in that neighborhood?

"No rational motive"?

Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? Tom Paine

People lie for many reasons, attention for one.

[SteveGrenard]

ED: People lie for many reasons, attention for one.


Holohan received no public attention re this matter until Detective Batters wrote up the interview with her nearly two decades after the fact.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
ED: People lie for many reasons, attention for one.


Holohan received no public attention re this matter until Detective Batters wrote up the interview with her nearly two decades after the fact.

To be the center of attention with a cop? Please. Ask some of the cops here if they have met people who get off on that. You know, Steve, there are subtleties involved with humans. You think of attention as the Press, I guess. For others it might simply be the attention of an authority figure. It might be a lot less than that. I have no idea what this persons motives were, I just know that humans are unpredictable critters.

Now let me ask, is it more likely that this woman craved attention or that dead people are talking to us?

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Detective Batters wrote up the interview with her nearly two decades after the fact.

I missed this. A 20 year old rewritten piece of evidence?

Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?

[SteveGrenard]

Ed: I missed this. A 20 year old rewritten piece of evidence?

Not exactly. When I say wrote up, I meant for publication in the Police Federation magazine. I guess you have not been following this close enough to know that. His article in that publication was based on the original notes of the interview. Prior to this, most of the world (I am sure) has never heard of Holohan. Insofar as getting local attention or even confidential attention from the police, I take your point. Most of the people I know and grew up with (in Brookyn) go out of their way not to talk to the police if they can. ;). The mindset was "mind your own business...." -- remember this was in the days when Arnold Schuster fingered Willie Sutton, who got picked up and sent away. Schuster was gunned down afterwards for his good deed. That sent a powerful message to the populace.

At the time Ruark was convicted of murder, it was 18 years later so everything in this case, including the evidence that convicted him, was nearly two decades old. As you no doubt are aware old evidence is used all the time to charge, try and convict people of murder cases from decades earlier. The Skakel case is a case in point. Thanks to DNA/PCR technology, people are both convicted and exonerated of these old cases. But the original evidence is usually as old as the case.

[Stumpy]

Lucianarchy wrote:

She took no credit for her part

Post conviction she has done a number of interviews doing that. Obviously 18 years ago there was nothing for her to take credit for. If there was a conviction during the original enquiry what reason do you have to suppose that she wouldn't have taken credit then as she does now?

Stumpy, you are relying on completely unfounded supposition

But so are Keen & Playfair. They suppose that there was no way Holohan could have been gleaned other than paranormal means.
You honestly think that it is insignificant that Holohan only lived 1.3 miles from the pub from where the the initial Police breakthrough came? The same pub where both victim and offender used to drink. Do you agree that IF it could be shown that Holohan drank there or that she did readings for people who drank there then "paranormal" theory would be dead in the water? Even without this connection the close proximity of the psychic to the focus of the enquiry surely provides her numerous opportunities to obtain the information by non-paranormal means! Unfortunately the landlord of the relevant pub moved on some time ago, as have the "regulars". To trace them and interview is well beyond our resources. In any event the onus is still on the claimant to prove their case. In this instance the claimant would appear to be Holohan, it is in her gift to prove her abilities. The whole case also relies on notes, the provenance of which have yet to be proven - I have stated MY willingness to take Batters at his word, others may wish to take a differenct view. Do you not think it odd that the original notes relating to this allegedly crucial interview were not submitted to the enquiry team? This is indisputable as Batters still retains the notes!

What I have in my possession are typed up versions of the original notes. Returning to the issue of Holohan taking credit, she gave an interview, post conviction, that can be read here:
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/pghost27.htm (http://)

In it you will see Holohan describing the murder throught the eyes of the victim. Holohan states:

I saw his hands go round her throat and pull the cord tight.

If that was the case why didn't she tell Batters? Within the notes that I have no mention is made of ANY cord, in fact no weapon was specified in the notes. It is only post trial when the knowledge of the murder weapon was made public tht Holohan steps forward and claims that she knew this in the days after the murder - yet she never mentioned it during her interview with Batters (or at least it wasn't noted down).

In essence we have a 22 year old woman living in London on a nice estate. A murder occurs within 3 miles, the focus of the enquiry is at a pub 1.3 miles away. It is almost certain that the the murder would have been the main topic of discussion in the local pubs, cafes and shops. The woman gives information to the Police relating to the murder. Bearing in mind her close proximity to the action do you honestly think that she got the information from the deceased rather than the local talk?!?

The issue of "why" Holohan would do this is a bit of a no brainer. As soon as any murder enquiry is launched in this country self-styled psychics are queuing up to be involved. The more high profile the case the more "psychics" are phoning up.

Stumpy

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Despite all the supposition (what happened to skepticism here?) about deception, there is no rational motive for Ms H. to commit such an act. She has a history of integrity and honesty. She took no credit for her part. Stumpy, you are relying on completely unfounded supposition. If you have any evidence for such a claim, please provide it. This is a skeptic forum, we rely on evidence, most of which is currently in favour of Ms H using a method of data retrievel currently beyond the understanding of science. If you have evidence to test your theory, then please present it. But as a skeptic, you must accept that it remains a theory lacking in supporting evidence, whilst the 'mediumship' theory looks very strong.

There are many rational motives for her to lie, and they've been pointed out. And it is possible for the explanation to be mundane even if she is being honest (she could herself be deceived in various ways).

The evidence now seems to amount to, "Information, documented in notes we can't see, that told police nothing they did not already know, was given by a woman who lived in close proximity to everyone involved, after the events became public knowledge". Not very convincing, to say the least. Can it be proved that someone lied? Of course not. But that sure doesn't mean it's true. The best that can be said at this point is that it's completely non-evidential. It's a story that proves nothing about anything.

[FutileJester]

Stumpy,

:clap:

Thanks! Great work.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by FutileJester
Stumpy,

:clap:

Thanks! Great work.

I second that.

Stumpy, write this up for an article in SkepticReport. That's an order, ossifer! :)

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

I clicked on the hyperlink in your post - it works from here! Will try and find a way to link to it.

[SteveGrenard]

thanks, I got it after 3 tries.....probably was busy

[Stumpy]

Sorry my hyperlink to the above Holhan interview doesn't work.

Try cutting and pasting:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/pghost27.htm

You may also want to look at this interview with Holohan about the case:

http://archives.tcm.ie/carlownationalist/2001/09/17/story109.asp

Notice the significant differences in her description of how the first contact with the spirit of the victim took place.

Stumpy

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by FutileJester

The evidence now seems to amount to, "Information, documented in notes we can't see, that told police nothing they did not already know, was given by a woman who lived in close proximity to everyone involved, after the events became public knowledge".

You forgot to mention that she also got the date of the murder wrong, gave inconsistent accounts of how she received the information, and has since (See Stumpy's link above) given differing acconts of her first meeting with the spirit of the victim.

And, that the notes were written up some unidentified period of time after the interview, and that Batter's could not say for sure when the interviw took place!

I would say that is totaly worthless. However, it does give us yet another insight into the sheer credulity of the people who want to believe in this nonsense.

Keen's extensive reserach can't even identify what Batter's official role was in the investigation. He then is happy to tell us that a hot reading hypothesis is 'impossibe' and an 'affront to common sense'. Yet the the chief suspect was hauled out of a pub just over a mile away from Holohan's flat, and many details of the reading were published in the local paper on or before the interview.

As if this wasn't bad enough, he then has to suffer the ultimate indignity, ie being defended by Luci! Luci, that great 'sceptic' who believes in....

Dowsing
Clairvoyance
Talking to the Dead
That Uri Geller has super powers
That Natalia has super powers
That she can predict lottery numbers in advance
Telkenisis
ESP
Remote Viewing
Wiccan Magic
Giant worms on Mars
That there are 'hundreds' of experiments that have 'proved' the existence of 'psi'
etc, etc, etc.


With friends like that.......... ;)

[SteveGrenard]

Let me make it clear at the outset that the description of Tony Batters as the principal detective involved was my wording, not his. He has modestly disclaimed such a role, and asked me to make this clear, although in relation to the events with which my colleague and I were principally concerned — the entry into the deceased's flat, the record taking, and the interview with Holohan -- it seems to me as a layman to be a perfectly fair description. What is objectionable, and rather despicable, is the attempt to disparage and minimise Batters' role as a detective of 30 years standing, whether attached to the CID or the uniform branch, who had the task of scrutinising and analysing all the documents involved in this complicated 15 months murder hunt and was regarded by Lundy as his right-hand man on documented issues, and a source of reference for the three days Lundy spent at the trial, leaving Batters as the source of reference to the prosecuting barrister for the subsequent two weeks of the trial. Despite several attempts made by Division for his return, Batters was sufficiently valuable to be retained by Lundy with one other detective for the entire period of the investigation even though the murder squad was substantially disbanded after six or seven months. So please can we finish with these snide attempts to marginalise Batters' role and the ridiculous quibbles over his technical status?

My only error, and one I immediately corrected, was in the (trivial and irrelevant) reference to Batters having himself retrieved the pullover, as if it mattered. It was made in a letter to Professor Christopher French, editor of The Skeptic magazine, in a comment on Youens' article in which he vainly attempted to provide a non-paranormal explanation of the interview with Holohan. I did not make the assertion in any forum. I have not contacted or corresponded with any forum on this matter, and I have never heard of or been involved in the "Police and psychics thread". I have simply corresponded with you, Steve Grenard. I do not know to whom or what the correspondence has been transmitted but have assumed it has been sent to all who may have read Youens or Shaw's effusions on some network. Shaw has quoted statements I never uttered or wrote, and then made a meal out of them. I have not spoken to Lundy for reasons previously given. I see no reason to now, especially when it is clear that his memory of events at the trial two years ago is almost as fallible as his recollection of the sequence of events twenty years ago. There has been no hedging, retreat, downgrading, evasion and futile re-interpretation on my part, as Shaw alleges; nor is there any mess requiring unravelling, save that laboriously constructed by those determined to find a non paranormal explanation, no matter how far-fetched their assumptions, or how generously they libel Christine Holohan without troubling to produce a single piece of supporting evidence. I find this scandalously irresponsible conduct for a serving police officer.

There is obviously a dispute whether the pullover did or did not play a role in the sequence of events which determined the verdict of guilty and whether it was or was not retrieved because of the heightened suspicion of Ruark consequent on the Holohan interview. It is inconceivable, in the light of the wealth of accurate detail provided by Holohan, that it would not have had a significant effect on those members of the murder squad — and there were some forty of them, with Lundy as their leader — who were apprised of the evidential nature of the interview. Shaw says he has spoken to some of them, but there are no names; and we do not know how many of them were even aware of the Holohan interview or had any reason to be. It is obvious that anyone other than a purblind bigot to whom Batters or Smith reported the outcome of the interview would have been impressed and spurred by it, but more than likely, such is the nature of memory and wish-fulfilment -- that Lundy would not wish his pride to be dented by any recollection of any statements made by a medium, especially if he felt it somehow reflected on his achievement as the man primarily responsible for solving the only outstanding murder mystery of his career.

On the contribution of the pullover to the successful outcome of trial, it is possible to have more than one opinion, since no-one can say what factors swayed the jury. It may well be that McKinlay wasn't even aware of the pullover: there was no reason why he should have been. He wasn't around when all the 1983 information was being gathered. However, the forensic evidence at the trial relating to the blood and semen stains on the garment, indicating a struggle rather than the consensual intercourse claimed by the defendant, must surely have added a significant weight in the balance of probability. It certainly would with me had I been a juror.

It would be an extremely odd procedure to start digging up gardens unless there had been some sort of tip off. There was. It took the form of Holohan's semi-trance scribbled note which both identified Pokie as the murderer and referred to gardens, in response to a question about the location of the stolen jewellery. Shaw joyfully concludes that the medium was unable to give the police any information about the fate of the stolen property. But there is a very high level of probability that she did just that, except that the significance of the information was not recognised until eighteen years later. But even if she had not been able to provide any such evidence, it would detract not a whit from the evidentiality of the rest of her statements. Guy Playfair and I will be giving the precise evidence for this in our paper.

Now for the relevant issue. Shaw's hypothesis, backed by Youens, is that the sequence of events was such that Holohan had time to obtain all the relevant information normally. True, there is uncertainty about the precise sequence, and reluctance on the part of McKinlay to allow access to the documents which would show just when Holohan telephoned in response to the police appeal for information. The body was discovered on Sunday, February 13, 1983. Holohan's call to the police could hardly have been before Monday, and the interview took place either the next day, as Andy Smith vaguely recollects, or Thursday, which is Tony Batters' preference and accords with his note. No-one, including the officer concerned, is quite certain when Ruark was arrested and his apartment searched: it may have been as late as the Friday.

Frankly I don't think it matters. However one juggles around with the dates, the hypothesis is wildly improbable that Holohan, even had she the time, knowledge and incentive to gather all the information which came in unsequential bits and pieces during the interview, would have been able to acquire all the information normally. What astonishes me is the fact that Tony Batters has already provided a copy of his interview notes and analysis of them to Youens, so there's even less excuse for some of the preposterous notions he and Shaw are trying to push.

The suggestion that newspaper reports would have given much of the information to Holohan doesn't hold water either. I have examined all the local newspaper reports, and the dates on which they were published. They reflects the limited amount of information the police considered it prudent to reveal, and could account for only a fraction of the information, not all of it strictly accurate. Nor did any reveal Poole's maiden name as given by Holohan. It is in fact certain that Holohan could not have seen any before her telephone call, since the first local paper with the news was not published until the Thursday, the most likely date of the interview itself.

Then let us consider the 72 statements she made about the scene of the crime. Shaw first imagines that Holohan, on hearing of the murder, promptly inspected a neighbour's flat to familiarise herself with the layout. There is no evidence that she did. No neighbour has come forward to say that this young Irishwoman wanted to nose around her apartment for some reason. Then it is surmised that she must have had the information from a member of the family whom Batters had allowed on the scene when effecting his entry. How does Shaw know this? It is false. No member of the victim's family was allowed entry to the flat, until Poole's husband, Malcolm, saw it one week later. The keys were not released to the family until four weeks later. Could she have got the information from the father of her boy friend, and who identified the body? But this won't do either. The man entered the lounge via the back bedroom window, and never went into the kitchen, orthe bathroom. How, then, did the medium make correct statements about the precise state of the normally tidy kitchen or know that the struggle started in the bathroom? Perhaps the family had a duplicate set of keys, made an unscheduled entry to inspect the flat, and rushed off to tell Holohan, of whom none of them had ever heard, all about it. But even this couldn't account for much of the evidence, even that relating to the corpse and the appearance of the flat.

So far these speculations have been firmly based on a total absence of evidence, however flimsy. Now we come to the pub gossip in The Windmill, from which Holohan is assumed to have gleaned so much information she wished to retail to the police, for a motive or reason unknown. Where are the witnesses that Holohan was an habitué of this pub? She tells me she has never even visited it. The only pub she recalls is the Tally-ho where she spent a couple of evenings serving behind the bar; otherwise she was fully engaged as a cleaner at Northolt Airfield, or giving readings. If she knew so much about the deceased woman, how is it that her name was nowhere to be found in Poole's list of telephone contacts, and that no-one in this gossipy pub world had any knowledge of her or mentioned her to the police? Holohan lived in a different part of the area, about three quarters of an hour's walk away - she depended on public transport - was not a pub frequenter, would not have mixed with or approved of the fraternity of petty criminals with whom the dead woman associated, and had no reason beyond public spirit and the importunate urgings of her ghostly informer to notify the police. If she had given a reading to Poole and gleaned some information thereby, there was no record of it in Poole's diary, and no-one else appeared to know about it. Nor it is likely that this would have helped her to describe the circumstances of the murder.

What of the possibility that one or more members of the murder squad may have spoken to members of the Poole family about the state of the flat? Not only was the state of the apartment not known to more than one or two officers, but Batters' 20-page typewritten statement was not typed out until the end of the week. In any event it is very unlikely that anyone would have given detailed information of so distressing a nature to any of the Poole family, and even less likely to have done so before Holohan's interview.

What specific statements did Holohan make that she could not have known by normal means? Certainly the state of the kitchen; and the nature of the sexual assault: neither could have been apparent at the time without close examination. Likewise the fact that the struggle had apparently started in the bathroom, where there was evidence of a fight; and unless her boyfriend's father, availing himself of his brief and shocking experience in the lounge, had hastened for no imaginable reason to give a woman he had almost certainly never met a detailed description of the scene in order that she could later pretend to the police that a spirit had provided the information ....

I hasten from one absurdity to the next. The record shows that Holohan referred by name to Poole's dead friend, although the identity of this woman was not traced by the police at the time, and remained unknown until after the 2001 trial. She made 42 statements about the murderer, including that he had been recently engaged in an insurance swindle, a fact unknown to the police. So we must assume that Pokie was so intimate with Holohan that he told her of his insurance swindle, as well as showing her his tattoo, revealing his birth date, even indicating where he parked his vehicle on the night of the murder or that his mates would support a phoney alibi. It passes comprehension that anyone, in a desperate effort to ignore the facts, can build one improbable hypothesis on another and wind up with such fanciful nonsense.

Just a few more points arising from Shaw's comments transmitted to you on September 27th. Shaw dismisses all the literature of apparent evidence of discarnate communication as mainly anecdotal "as in this case". It is not altogether surprising that a detective unfamiliar with the psychical research literature he is criticising should display crass ignorance of this sort; but presumably this also reflects the views of Tony Youens who certainly should know better. In no way can the evidence in the present case be described as anecdotal. No more can the vast accumulation of recorded readings and automatic writings which have been the subject of intensive and thorough analysis for well over a century be disregarded as anecdotal.

It is equally absurd and evasive to dismiss as cold reading the spontaneously provided psychometric evidence which so startled Andy Smith. How could his body language, eye contact etc. enable Holohan to know that he had just received a letter about essential electrical work? Youens is an authority on cold reading: he was presented as such in the recent Channel 4 programme on The Ultimate Psychic Challenge, and has since provided a clever analysis of one of the supposedly cold readings by the psychic medium, Keith Charles. With equal cleverness he has avoided attempting this in the more persuasive readings featured; just as he, and Shaw, have preferred to ignore the testimony of Philadelphia police chiefs commending Charles' tried and tested psychic sleuthing work.

Shaw has relied on a device which any ten year-old would see through: demanding absolute proof
that Holohan never visited the Windmill, never met Poole, never knew any of her conacts etc, as though one could prove a negative.

I suggest the time has arrived when the critics await publication of our report; and then ponder the merits of offering an unreserved apology to Batters and, in particular, to Christine Holohan whom they have not hesitated to traduce.

[Ed]

Excellent writing. The brits generally do tend to write well. Of course about 1/3 of this missive is irrelevant rightious indignation, 1/3 simply irrelevant and 1/3 unsupported assertion.

If I may quote myself:

Irrelevant points

1) Batters testified or did not. Who cares, with regard to the psychic anything he said would be hearsay and inadmissable.
2) He found, retained or otherwise was involved with a piece of clothing. This clothing may or may not have the source of the DNA.
3) Batters held some, an important or no position vis a vis the investigation
These and other points have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and relate more to the ability/integrety of Keen, who is now reporting on the events.

Issues regarding the paranormal

1)When did the "psychic" talk to the cops?
2)Did she, at that time, or later, provide any information that the cops did not know? This is a yes or no.
It does not matter who testified in what capacity or anything else regarding the mechanics of the case. This is the key issue. Did she know anything that the cops did not. If not, we have a lot of arm waving about a non-issue. If so, we have something interesting.

Issues regarding Keen
1) Everything else not germane to the point immeadiately above. What in the name of god does it have to do with anything whether Batters was a beat cop or superintendent of police except insofar as it impeaches Keen as a reporter, his "peer" reviewers if they publish drek, and anything else Keen works on.

Two issues gentlemen: Keen and the psychic. One has nothing to do with the other.


Keen is engaging in precisely the misdirection that I indicated above. The other issue is when Batters, reliably, wrote down his notes.



__________________

[NoZed Avenger]

I hasten from one absurdity to the next.



[Make your own jokes here]


I'm sorry, but when it was announced that any other solution was "impossible" based on an 18 year old case with the information that we've been given to date, I lost a lot of interest.


N/A

[tonyyouens]

Dear all,

Stumpy is a bit busy at the moment so I thought I'd let you know that I have published Tony Batter's notes on my website (with his permission of course). I have also revised my article in light of recent information.

I'll let Stumpy respond to Keen's latest ramblings although I have made brief comment at the end of the above article.

Updated article: http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm
T.B.'s notes: http://www.tonyyouens.com/BattersNotes.htm

Cheers

Tony Youens

[Dragon]

Tony and Stumpy,

I remember reading the Batters article in "Police" when it first came out. I didn't think much of it but couldn't be bothered to look into it any further. Your investigation has opened my eyes somewhat. In fact, this whole story has taught me a few things about being a sceptic and the attitudes and tactics of believers.

Thank you, a superb job.

P.S.
IMHO what this requires now, if anything, is for Keen to post here himself and answer questions.
Oh, and perhaps Steve G could say what his own view is on this case.

[Ed]

Originally posted by tonyyouens
Dear all,

Stumpy is a bit busy at the moment so I thought I'd let you know that I have published Tony Batter's notes on my website (with his permission of course). I have also revised my article in light of recent information.

I'll let Stumpy respond to Keen's latest ramblings although I have made brief comment at the end of the above article.

Updated article: http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm
T.B.'s notes: http://www.tonyyouens.com/BattersNotes.htm

Cheers

Tony Youens

Tony, old bean:

I am amazed at how this thread has rambled but I think that there are only a few key questions. Perhaps you might take a stab at answering them?

1- What is the earliest VERIFIABLE date that Batters commited his notes to paper?

2- As of that date, what specifically was known to the police with respect to the points made in the notes?

3- Of those things not known (or inferred, I might add) which were accurate?

4- Why are so many Brits named Tony?

Thank you.

Also, might you refresh my memory regarding your connection with this case?

[SteveGrenard]

There will be no more messages from Keen as transmitted by me. Keen has called a halt to this until after the January publication of their investigation. I will no longer be posting here either so you will have to find people with access to the journal if you want to continue this debate at that time.

I also reserve judgement until after I read the peer reviewed report.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There will be no more messages from Keen as transmitted by me. Keen has called a halt to this until after the January publication of their investigation. I will no longer be posting here either so you will have to find people with access to the journal if you want to continue this debate at that time.

I also reserve judgement until after I read the peer reviewed report.

If the peers do not cause Keen to address specifically the points that I have made above it will be just more woo-wooism.

[tonyyouens]

Originally posted by Ed


Tony, old bean:

I am amazed at how this thread has rambled but I think that there are only a few key questions. Perhaps you might take a stab at answering them?

1- What is the earliest VERIFIABLE date that Batters commited his notes to paper?

2- As of that date, what specifically was known to the police with respect to the points made in the notes?

3- Of those things not known (or inferred, I might add) which were accurate?

4- Why are so many Brits named Tony?

Thank you.

Also, might you refresh my memory regarding your connection with this case?

Ed,

1. Batters says he wrote this out as she spoke but didn't write the date at the top of his note book. Impossible for me to verify but I have found that despite our completely opposite opinions Tony Batters has been honest throughout.

2. I can't be certain what the police did or did not know, all I can say is that it is possible that most of it was somewhere in the public domain. At such an early stage in the investigation it may be that some people knew more than the police.

3. "Accuracy" is a somewhat misleading word. If during a reading I said, "the name Michael is significant" and it was your brother's name I could claim accuracy but I don't think you would be impressed (Montague Keen would though). She certainly knew a lot of facts about Poole and Ruark but IMHO that isn't particularly impressive. She came up with various snippets of information that could have been guesses but equally she missed out a great deal . Keen's ridiculous attempts to excuse her being wrong about the day of the murder is laughable. One point I mentioned in my article; Holohan supposedly described what Poole was wearing but gave no hint as to what Ruark wore. This becomes important when you consider how much emphasis Keen puts on the discovery of the pullover. If she had described it then the Police could have looked out for it when they did their search rather than rely on a lucky find in a dustbin. BTW at the time (1983) they didn't need to get a search warrant when the suspect was under arrest.

4. It's just a spooky coincidence that there are so many Tonys involved. It actually not that common in the UK. Perhaps Keen will write up a peer reviewed report on it.

Forgot - my involvement was through The Skeptic (UK magazine - explained in the article.

Best regards

Tony Youens

[Dragon]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There will be no more messages from Keen as transmitted by me. Keen has called a halt to this until after the January publication of their investigation. I will no longer be posting here either so you will have to find people with access to the journal if you want to continue this debate at that time.

I also reserve judgement until after I read the peer reviewed report.
Steve,
As I said on a different topic, I'll still be here. I will be especially interested in seeing who the "peers" are.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dragon

Steve,
As I said on a different topic, I'll still be here. I will be especially interested in seeing who the "peers" are.

Hmmmmmmm....

If one is the Marquis of Bath an awful lot will be clear:D

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard quoting Keen....
Youens is an authority on cold reading: he was presented as such in the recent Channel 4 programme on The Ultimate Psychic Challenge, and has since provided a clever analysis of one of the supposedly cold readings by the psychic medium, Keith Charles. With equal cleverness he has avoided attempting this in the more persuasive readings featured; just as he, and Shaw, have preferred to ignore the testimony of Philadelphia police chiefs commending Charles' tried and tested psychic sleuthing work.

Keen's hysterical ramblings are doing a great hatchet job on the credibility of believers of this twaddle. I hope to see more posts from him in due course.:)

Most of his diatribe speaks for itself, in a highly self destructive way. However I really could not let the above comments about Keith Charles pass.

The show in question was a farce. Charles gave a particularly transparent performance. The reference to the Philadelphia police is a real joke. Charles went over there to give his 'assistance'. He came up with a nickname 'Sleepy' in connection with a murder enquiry. It seems that a person with this nickname was at one time a resident of Philadelphia. This was AFTER Charles had spoken to s few residents! 'Sleepy' was nowhere to be found during the investigation. There is not a single shred of evidence that this person was involved in any way with the crime. And that's the best they could come up with!

So there you have it. No crime solving. No evidence. Nothing but a nickname of a person whom no one has been able to link to the crime. Is that what you consider to be 'tried and tested psychic sleuthing work'. Keen does apparently. What a joke. :D

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by tonyyouens


Forgot - my involvement was through The Skeptic (UK magazine - explained in the article.

Best regards

Tony Youens

Hi Tony,

It's good to see you here.

I'd just like to say that I thought you did a great job on the Ultimate Challenge show. Shame the presenter was not a little more on the ball. She really let Charles off the hook several times.

Welcome!:cool:

[Ed]

From Tony's website

Here are some of the other things I have serious doubts about;

Alternative medicines and other unlikely forms of healing (esp. homeopathy),
Astrology,
Bending metal with the mind,
Dowsing,
Ghosts,
Hypnosis (depending on your definition),
Miracles,
Reincarnation,
Talking to the dead,
Tarot and other psychic readings,
Telekinsesis (moving things with the mind),
Telepathy (including ‘remote viewing’),
UFO’s.

Fortunately he does not have serious doubts about the Loch Ness Monster. He is therefore OK in my book:D

[tonyyouens]

Hi everyone,

Nice to be here. I didn't really want to get involved before as Stumpy was doing such an excellent job but now I've arrived it gives me a chance to say publicly that I couldn't have done it without him.

Thanks for al the comments about the investigation. There's still a lot I'd like to clear up but,

1. Many of the police officers connected with this are reluctant to get involved,

2. Everyone's memory seems a little shaky anyway,

3. The Met won't release any details of the investigation as it's still a bit too recent (2001) and,

4. Although transcripts of the trial can be purchased the cost is £150 per hour of court time - and it lasted a week.

I agree about the presenter on UPC. Why did she let Keith Charles get away with it?

As for the Loch Ness Monster it's a dinosaur and as such is a worthy member of the Society for Psychical Research.

Cheers

Tony

www.tonyyouens.com (http://www.tonyyouens.com)

[Stumpy]

I'd like to give a respose to Keen's previous post and try and put this whole sorry mess into some perspective.

First of all some apologies are in order.

Firsly to the posters on this board. A lot of interest has been shown in this fascinating case, a number of the people have taken the trouble to read all about the claimed aspects of this case and comment on them. Unfortunatley a lot of that effort appears to have been wasted. A lot of the claims simply were not made by Batters - see below. In hindsight I should have contacted Batters first. I assumed that Keen was accurately reporting what Batters had told him - this appears to have been not the case (see below). Apologies to to all concerned, as a "trainee skeptic" this experience has taught me to believe nothing and check everything where ever possible.

Secondly, in communication between Tony Batters and Tony Youens, Batters has expressed some concern regarding my apparent attempt to undermine his position on the investigation. At that time he was unaware of any claims regarding his status i.e "Principal Detective involved" had been made. Furthermore he was unaware that it was being claimed that the recovery of the sweater was largely due to the information provided by Holohan. Tony Youens and I traced several members of the enquiry, including the two most senior officers involved. We asked them about the "Principal detective involved" claim regarding Batters, they ALL told us that Batters was the local officer retained on the enquiry in an administrative role. I only reported what others were telling me. It wouldn't have been an issue if Keen had reported accurately. Here is what Batters has emailed to Tony Youens:

I have just received from Monty copies of e-mail exchanges between him and Shaw. Some of the content appears to attack me personally, seeking to undermine my role in the case. This may have arisen through someone's use of prosaic licence, eg "(The) principal detective involved", which is an exaggeration! My role was mainly administrative"

My investigation into his role were indeed prompted by Keen's "prosaic licence", I apologize if my corrections were interpreted as an attack on his integrety - this was certainly not the intention.

Keen has made some wild claims about the recovery and the retention of the sweater being largely due to the intervention of the sweater. Keen wrote the following in the Skeptic magazine in respect of the sweater:

"It was Holohan's uniquely detailed evidence, plus a spontaneous psychometic reading which produced three strikingly accurate pieces of personal information about one of the detectives, that so impressed Batters and prompted him to ransack Ruark's dustbin and retrieve the fatal garment. Without it the case would have collapsed

This is NOT the claim of Batters who says this in his communication with Tony Youens:

It is equally arguable that Ruark would have been convicted without that garment

Furthermore in respect of Holohan's influence on the case Batters merely says this:

much of this is subjective, but the essence is that a number of officers who, I re-confirm, already considered Ruark as a possible suspect were impressed, encouraged, further motivated by the wealth of apparaent information from a most unusual source. It would be impssible to measure the effect on didligence when they carried out subsequent searches and interviews

So, far from the previous ludicrous assertions made by others, that Holohan's information lead directly to the recovery of the sweater, the reality of Batters claim is that there MAY merely have been some influence in the mind of the investigator's. I agree a lot with Batters says in respect of this issue. However I would point out that Holhan's influence is relevant only to those dealing directly with Ruark. I have spoken to the officer who interviewed Ruark and recovered the sweater, he has catogoric: The information had no influence on him whatsoever.

The recovery of the sweater was entirely due to traditional policing methods. As the sweater is the only very tenous link between Holohan and conviction, it is clear that Holohan's information did NOT in any way affect the conviction.

I accept that Holohan's information may have impressed some of the officers on the enquiry but it is irrelevant and tells us nothing about the source of Holhan's information paranormal or otherwise.

In respect of Keen's obviously incorrect assertions made here and elsewhere, Batters has had a chance to review the material he states the following:

Have now spoken to Monty at length, to correct some of the misunderstandings. Most appear to have arisen through previous discussions in the context of "What if....?", and may have been taken as fact instead of mere speculation. Unfortunately, some of my corrections appear to have been forwarded too late for whatever behind-the-scene debates are raging currently, although I hope all will be in order by the time articles are actually published

So Keen's reports are based on speculation and misinterpretation?!!! We have expended all this energy about something which Mr Batters never actually claimed! What does this say about the standard of SPR investigations and the much heralded "peer review" process of JSPR? In this case, at least, it seems to be nothing more than a rubber stamping process designed to give the report a veneer of respectability. Maybe Keen would like to time out from his feverish corrections to his JSPR articles to elucidate on his processes and those of his peers involved in the review process. I think the topic of peer reviewing is worthy of it's own thread, I must confess that I am not fully aware of it's process. I do know that if I had turned in a report at work riddled with such obvious errors and rampant bias that I would be facing severe disciplinary measures. It is therefore deeply ironic that I have only ever really set out to highlight and correct those errors of Keens for him to label my conduct "scandalously irresponsible conduct for a serving police officer." I don't imagine for a moment that he would consider withdrawing or apologizing for this shameful remark. I think his recent abusive comments about Mr Randi and his scandalously inept approach to research and investigation tell us all we need to know about this individual. Throughout this whole process I have been totally upfront, welcoming criticism, acknowledging errors and correcting them promptly and issuing apologies where necessary - and not the mealy mouthed evasive type of apologies offered by Steve Grenard. Speaking of whom!....

Steve Grenard made some ham fisted attempt elevate Holohan's alleged abilities into something much more substantial in relation to her time spent in Ruislip. Of his potty assertion, Batters says this:

Some bizarre implication is being made re Holohan's time in Ruislip. I am appalled by someone's (Steve Grenard) inane attempt to throw mud in this fashion

It will be interesting to see if SG views this sorry episode of worthy of an apology.

Ultimately once we clear aware the complete dross tacked onto this case by those with pre-concieved ideas and their own agenda, there is still a compelling mystery at the heart of this case. Tony Youens and I are sure that Tony batters is telling the truth. 18 years ago a self proclaimed psychic gave some detailed information regarding an ongoing murder case. Accepting that the prevenance of the notes taken in respect of that interview is less than perfect this shouldn't negate the basic claim.

Contrary to what Keen claims in his previous post I have never accused anyone of lying, however I certainly don't eliminate this as a possiblity in the dismissive manner that he does. The whole paranormal assertion seems to be based solely on circumstantial evidence. It is possible that holohan could have genuine psychic powers, but until she demonstrates those powers in conditions that eliminate fraud or error I'm afraid that I am going to cautiously reject that hypothosis. Keen is equally dismissive of the close proxity of the medium to the scene where Ruark was originally detained in full public view. Holohan was working as a medium, she would have has associations from people all over the borough of Ruislip any of them could easily have provided her with the information. Similarly is it totally inconceivable that she could have gleaned the information from the local pubs herself.
Keen now seems to be suggesting that if we can't prove our theory (which we can't) then his must be correct! He has to rely on this device simply because he can't prove his claim either! Can Keen point to a single item on the notes taken by Batters (now reproduced on Tony Youens website) which couldn't have been known outside the Police enquiry. If not, what are we arguing about here?!?

Once again, apologies for the rather circular route we have taken to get to the heart of this issue - lesson learnt in respect of material produced by Keen!

regards

Stumpy

[SteveGrenard]

I have asked questions. Please advise me what mud I threw and in what fashion and at whom? By asking questions? If that's true, you should check out the questions asked by Claus Larsen. If its okay for the protected Larsen (protected by the moderators who kiss his aass) to ask questions, I can do likewise.

The double standards enforced by this board become more and more absurd. Today, I heard from Colonel Bidlack there is no rule against lying here. Yes, if its Larsen, Ed Dittus or Professor Corey
doing the lies and/or threats.

So please explain or retract immediately. And try not to hide behind Batters, its ridiculous. We dont know what you told him to elicit that quote Stumpy. In fact we only have your word it is his quote and since lying is allowed here according to Colonel Bidlack, you may've done just that.

Insofar as Keen is concerned he corrected the point about who retrieved the pullover. THis has to be the third time you brought this up. You only have 2.5 months to wait for the JSPR Jan 04 with the complete study therein. Reserve your copy now. The same issue will have Robertson and Roy's very much controlled and tightened up test of mediums. I urge all concerned to read or re-read Tony Batter's article in the Police Magazine to see where he stands. Amazingly Shaw is impeaching him while trying to breing him over to his side. Interesting tactic but recognizable.


Thank you. I await primie facie evidence I have thrown mud at someone (besides you and Youens NOW. Larsen, Corey, Ed Dittus, etc before ) and who that might be in relation to this case?

Steve Grenard