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
