Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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.

Have you forgotten this quote from earlier in the thread:

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

You asked if he was aware of a FACT.

You did not ask if he had any information that indicated she was, or if he was aware of claims that she was you expressed it as a fact and asked if he was aware of that fact.

To pretend you didn't could be interpreted as lying, and we know your views on that.

 

[Ed]

Stumpy:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

I think I remember now. I called the JE chick a skank and I suggested that you were popping her. Is that right? I'm pretty sure that that was the basicc theme. Could be wrong.

Incidentially I only said you huffed and puffed and threatened, I did not talk about reasons.

It does seem that you have problems with written english.

Now: lies and threats....please put up.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Since Rosa mom mislabeled the title of the study, she loses all credibility with me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If mislabelling is so damaging to the credibility of the person doing it that they lose all credibility with you, could you explain why labelling someone the "principal detective" when this was patently untrue does not seem to have the same effect in the Jacqui Poole case?

Thought I would copy this across here in case you missed it on the other thread as it is relevant to both.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry Jaggy, not my claim and not my statement. You are misattributing a statement regarding Detective Batters to me. It was made by someone else and forwarded by me.
I have no idea what Batters' role was and have not investigated this myself nor have I ever spoken to anyone involved save for the author's of the paper being published in January 04 in the JSPR.

Misattribution seems to go on a lot around here.

Thank you in advance to your special attention regarding this kind of thing in the future.

Okay Ed. I rest my case. This is definitely a keeper. Everybody understand now?

 

[Ed]

Okay Ed. I rest my case. This is definitely a keeper. Everybody understand now?

Case, what are you talking about? You feel like you just accomplished something? You do realize how odd you sound, don't you?

Now: lies and threats....please put up.

 

[Stumpy]

Steve wrote:

Sorry Jaggy, not my claim and not my statement. You are misattributing a statement regarding Detective Batters to me.

Jaggy didn't attribute this statement to you, he didn't attribute it to anyone. He was asking for your comments into the fact of the mislabelling not the source of it.

regards

Stumpy

 

[SteveGrenard]

Eddy old boy...the last time I went to the time and trouble of explaining in detail why you were threatened with a lawsuit you just slinked off and never responded. I am not doing it again so you will just have to live with that and the certain knowledge you opened this up again. Definitely a keeper.

thanks

 

[Ed]

Now: lies and threats....please put up.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy avers: Jaggy didn't attribute this statement to you, he didn't attribute it to anyone. He was asking for your comments into the fact of the mislabelling not the source of it.

Sorry didn't see any request for comments, only a rhetorical question. This question has been answered by Keen before. I have nothing to add or say further. It is also completely irrelevant
to the primary thesis Keen and Playfair are advancing which you can read in the JSPR in January.

In the Rosa study which is an altogether different subject and also irrelevant here, the title of the entire paper implied it was a test of the therapeutic value of a technique when it was nothing of the kind. The chief investigator, Emily Rosa, was also her own and, LOL, only test subject. No other persons were allowed to have their hands detected by the practitioners selected. Rosa therefore completely lacks credibility on several counts. Surely Emily could have enlisted the help of some of her classmates to serve as test subjects?

 

[hal bidlack]

this thread has been reported again.

Steve, are you threatening anyone? There is a concern that you are trying to censor speech by threatening legal action. There is case law on this, and there are no grounds for such a threat. If not, my bad, sorry. Please do clarify.

And again, you just seem to be unwilling to get this. I refuse to censor your debatees, as I also refuse to censor you. Why is this so hard for you? You claim I only protect those I like, while you remain uncensored. I don't see what's so complex about this.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Do you want me to publish the emails you sent me about your threats about a lawsuit?

It's all there.

 

[TLN]

Steve,

Do you want me to publish the emails you sent me about your threats about a lawsuit?

It's all there.

What's he going to say? Yes?

Just do it.

 

[tonyyouens]

The question has been raised about the [TEXT REMOVED] sections in the notes of Tony Batters. I asked him if I could publish his notes and he agreed apart some certain areas that he had marked [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]. I naturally agreed.

The reason for this is that some details might be upsetting to the family if released. This may be "unscientific" but he did it out of respect for the family's feelings.

I would hope the report in the JSPR to show equal restraint.

Tony
www.tonyyouens.com

 

[SteveGrenard]

Ed was already kind enough to provide us with an abbreviated form of the slanderous, disgusting and completely untrue accusations he made upon my character which hurt my wife and fasmily as well as his slurs against another married person who he called town whore. These were the reasons for the threat of a lawsuit. Mr. Dittus apologized (remember Ed?) and I accepted that. The posts were pruned from this site.

Mr. Larsen was also worried that I would sue him. For several months he sent me almost daily e-mails asking me if I was going to sue him and how it was going? I rfeplied to him the first few times telling him no, he was not the guilty party. Some how he was very dissapointed by this but it was true. It was entirely Ed and JREF's initial wilful failure to delete the slurs which had nothing to do with any discussion here. It was pure and simple character assasination with no basis in fact.

Any private e-mails Mr. Larsen posts and he is welcome to do so will show what he asked and what my reply was: No Larsen, you are not being sued. You have nothing to do with this. I finally stopped answering him as I was not sure he was paranoid or baiting me. Therefore if he posts any e-mails to the contray now, they would have been modified or edited by him to reflect what he is currently claiming which is not and was never true. It is a simple matter to edit e-mail files. Therefore, publish them if you want. Depending on what they say, they may or may not be altered.

So what am I going to say TLN? That's what I say.

Now, what about those sites I posted re definition of biofield. No comment yet? Cat got your biofield?

 

[SteveGrenard]

I understand Batter's desire to protect Poole's family who may see these things that Holohan said. Keen has never mentioned to me anything about censoring these items so it remains to be seen if they appear in the JSPR or not.

Frankly these absent lines spells the end of any possibility of properly analyzing the information Holohan gave him. If some of it was so disturbing as to bother the family, the assumption is that it was not public knowledge either nor was it reported in the press. If anything the need to delete these lines for this purpose tends to validate Holohan rather than impeach her but clearly nothing substantive can now be deduced re this matter.

 

[TLN]

Now, what about those sites I posted re definition of biofield. No comment yet? Cat got your biofield?

No. The cat doesn't have my brain either.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Hal

are you being funny or have you failed to read the fact that Ed Dittus, Claus Larsen and others brought up my threats of a lawsuit from over 1 year ago again? See TT thread.

Are you really that biased in favor of Larsen, Dittus and co. that you will even misinterpret about that? This is rich and gets better and better. The only threat is that I am writing this up for dissemination elsewhere on the internet. In detail with posts as proof. Like Larsen I keep everything.

But Yes, you are seriously mistaken. Show me where I have threatened a lawsuit in the past 24 hours? But also show yourself where Larsen and Dittus and a few others brought the subject up FIRST.

You advised me not to sit here and take it so I am taking your advice. Now you don't like that idea? Interesting.

 

[SteveGrenard]

TLN: No. The cat doesn't have my brain either.

Sum total of your intelligent response to the proof offered. Thank you.

 

[TLN]

Sum total of your intelligent response to the proof offered. Thank you.

Sorry Steve, just out of patience for this nonsense.

 

[SteveGrenard]

So just say you do not accept the proof of a biofield, of electrical field outside the body due to the generation of eeg, emg and ecg etc. Very simple. The Army is wrong, DARPA is wrong, Water Reed is wrong and the scientists at SRICO (contractor) are frauds. Go ahead. It doesnt take much patience to say these things and get on the record. Geez you had time to make a snide remark re Larsens question.

How can you loose patience when you ask a question, its answered and then it is no longer worth your time due to a loss of patience? I guess this is also a technique we've seen here as well. Oh well. Your welcome anyway.