Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[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a. Holohan used the victim’s “unpublished” maiden name of Hunt instead of the published married name.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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

[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]

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Are you absolutely certain about this?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

...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]

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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!

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Neither McKinlay or Lundy interviewed Holohan but obviously took a pass

Are you certain about this?

Quote:

But that doesn't change the facts

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

Quote:

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.

[Lucianarchy]

Quote:

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/carlownationa...7/story109.asp

[TLN]

Quote:

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/carlownationa...7/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]

Quote:

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. 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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

A very well done series of posts, Garrette!

Thank you. I'm blushin'.

[Garrette]

Steve,

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

[Cleopatra]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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? 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.

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]

Quote:

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"....