Jacqui Poole Murder Case
- Thread starter SteveGrenard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- murder cases
tonyyouens
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 96
Re: Re: Batter's Notes
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
Ed said:
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
RonSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 514
Re: Keen Responds: to Detective Shaw/Tony Youens
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.
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.
RonSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 514
Re: Re: Re: Batter's Notes
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!
tonyyouens said:
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!
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
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
tonyyouens
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 96
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
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
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:
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:
"
This is NOT the claim of Batters who says this in his communication with Tony Youens:
Furthermore in respect of Holohan's influence on the case Batters merely says this:
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:
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:
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
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:
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:
"
This is NOT the claim of Batters who says this in his communication with Tony Youens:
Furthermore in respect of Holohan's influence on the case Batters merely says this:
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:
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:
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
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
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
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
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Back on topic. I previously posted a link relating to an interview of Holohan after the conviction of Ruark, wherein she described her experience when the spirit of the murdered victim visited her. She claimed that she saw the cord being pulled tight round the victim's neck. Batters confirms that she did not mention any cord to him during the interview.
regards
Stumpy
regards
Stumpy
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Where are the red TEXT REMOVED lines from Batter's notes published on Youen's website? Why were they removed? By whom? This taints Youen's re-publication of that document.
I stated you may have elicited that quote from Batters based on what you told him or wrote him. I dont know. If Batters thinks I threw mud at him or anyone, I striongly suggest he appear here in person and tell me who it was I threw mud at it since you refuse or cannot do that and say you can't speak for him. I suggest if you can't speak for him that you also not quote him without explication.
You cannot make a remark like that Detective Shaw and not expect to be called on it. Or are you taking advantage of the
official policy that there is no rule against lying on this board?
PS: I did not lie about not posting in that thread anymore. That was my intention at the time. It did not include any other thread. But if I did lie, you should know I received an e-mail from Colonel Bidlack today saying lying is permitted here or rather it is not against the rules.
I stated you may have elicited that quote from Batters based on what you told him or wrote him. I dont know. If Batters thinks I threw mud at him or anyone, I striongly suggest he appear here in person and tell me who it was I threw mud at it since you refuse or cannot do that and say you can't speak for him. I suggest if you can't speak for him that you also not quote him without explication.
You cannot make a remark like that Detective Shaw and not expect to be called on it. Or are you taking advantage of the
official policy that there is no rule against lying on this board?
PS: I did not lie about not posting in that thread anymore. That was my intention at the time. It did not include any other thread. But if I did lie, you should know I received an e-mail from Colonel Bidlack today saying lying is permitted here or rather it is not against the rules.
*sighs deeply* All those question are answered at the top of the page in big black bold letters Steve.
The quotes weren't ellicited from him, he certainly read this thread, whether at the behest of Tony Youens or Montague Keen, I don't know and it matters not. The point is he read the thread and has given his views. I think you know that he is referring to your reference to Holohan being used in an RAF investigation into mediumship. I am guessing that he took your comment the way everbody else took it, in fact the way any normal person would take it - an attempt to throw mud at the case as a whole in the hope that some of it would stick. The issue is that he has that he has made critical comments about a number of people including me. I could have hidden or not reported that fact. I do not have such a fragile ego that I had to do that or not apologize to him.
regards
Stumpy
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
sigh, sigh stumpy. I asked a question regarding that. I made no statement or claim but wanted to know if what I heard about her working at Northolt was true. I didnt know what she did there
and wanted to know if she ever did mediumship there...a fair question. I never said there was an Air Force inquiry on this.
If that is mud slinging, at who? why? and to what purpose? It was in no way asked to throw mud on anyone. So the question remains unaswered: who did I throw mud at and why? I assert the answer is nobody. I confirmed she did work there.
When I am asking a question there is a difference between that and a statement, assertion or claim. I realize that some people here use questions as rhetorical devices. I use them to find out things.
Thank you.
and wanted to know if she ever did mediumship there...a fair question. I never said there was an Air Force inquiry on this.
If that is mud slinging, at who? why? and to what purpose? It was in no way asked to throw mud on anyone. So the question remains unaswered: who did I throw mud at and why? I assert the answer is nobody. I confirmed she did work there.
When I am asking a question there is a difference between that and a statement, assertion or claim. I realize that some people here use questions as rhetorical devices. I use them to find out things.
Thank you.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Stumpy:
You mean this:
"Tony Batters marked certain sensitive comments 'Not for Publication' and I have indicated where comments have been removed. It should not be inferred from this that I regard these pieces of text as being highly accurate. Indeed I think most of the comments could easily been inferred from the nature of the crime. Holohan did not give details about the sexual assault and also missed out various other pieces of information. She doesn't mention that Ruark used a "light cord" - something that wasn't disclosed at the time."
Sorry but deleted text taints the entire document. It is not scientific if that is what Youens and you are after. At the very least the removed portions if they contained names should have been reduced to initials, not even the real initials; if they referred to facts they could've been reduced to statemenrts about what they concern; in other words, about what? This leaves the entire mater of these notes open to further speculation I am afraid.
I appreciate these are Batters' notes and he has a right to puiblish what he wants but this is rather unorthodox in an investigation to self censor a document such as this. In my mind it makes it next to useless. It also almost makes it sound like a national security issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed: next time you bring up any assertions regarding why I may've threatened to sue JREF and, perhaps you, over something please be sure to explain in graphic detail why. Does that answer your question?
You mean this:
"Tony Batters marked certain sensitive comments 'Not for Publication' and I have indicated where comments have been removed. It should not be inferred from this that I regard these pieces of text as being highly accurate. Indeed I think most of the comments could easily been inferred from the nature of the crime. Holohan did not give details about the sexual assault and also missed out various other pieces of information. She doesn't mention that Ruark used a "light cord" - something that wasn't disclosed at the time."
Sorry but deleted text taints the entire document. It is not scientific if that is what Youens and you are after. At the very least the removed portions if they contained names should have been reduced to initials, not even the real initials; if they referred to facts they could've been reduced to statemenrts about what they concern; in other words, about what? This leaves the entire mater of these notes open to further speculation I am afraid.
I appreciate these are Batters' notes and he has a right to puiblish what he wants but this is rather unorthodox in an investigation to self censor a document such as this. In my mind it makes it next to useless. It also almost makes it sound like a national security issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed: next time you bring up any assertions regarding why I may've threatened to sue JREF and, perhaps you, over something please be sure to explain in graphic detail why. Does that answer your question?
No, we don't claim that it is scientific. The publication of this material only taints the case if we use the censored document to prove our claim. We make no claims. We offer it only in response to requests made in this forum.
The tactic seems to be to shift the onus of proof onto Tony and I, if we are unable to prove anything, ergo the paranormal claim is "the truth". I think not!
Keen challenged anyone to come up with a non-paranormal explanation - this suggests that Keen was unable to come up with one. A possible non paranormal explanation has now been provided. The onus still lies on Keen to prove his paranormal claim.
And yes you threatened to sue because I called your wife or that chick on the JE board a skank or something. Maybe it was worse, who knows. Shall I ask Claus to retrieve the posts in question? I also recall that I apologised publicly.
Now.....
Back to my original question:
Now.....
Back to my original question:
Ed said: