Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[Ed]

Steve

Evidence for my lies and threats

 

[TLN]

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.

Because I asked you to define biofield, then you engaged in typical Steveness: cutting and pasting links and studies you undoubtedly don't understand and couldn't describe to us in detail.

 

[hal bidlack]

Steve,

I guess you are fairly clever, because I note that the below quote, which I certainly take as a threat, was in a PM to me 24hours and 57 minutes ago. So, I guess technically I can't match your demand.

I therefore reiterate my request, for the record, for you to delete posts by Larsen referring to me (the National Enquoirer reference and the one in which I am portrayed as a pencil pushing administrator) and Yahzi's agreeing weith him that my background as given to her was "bogus." In addition, since
the DSM reference was clearly libelous even if you don't think so, I am again requesting you to remove this for the record.

Regardless of your decision, if it is negative to my request, you should furnish a copy of this post and your decision to James Randi and whomsoever else at JREF may bear the ultimate responsibility for such actions.

Do you really not see that you are demanding censorship? Perhaps you should do a search on what I have been called, and you can decide if simply being attacked is reason for limiting speech. Attack all you want to, but you don't get to have your own facts. I treat each poster the same, and that's by the rules.

And please forgive me for this Steve, but if being called a pencil pusher gets under your skin this much, perhaps internet debate was not made for you. Again I point you to what I have been called in the ongoing censorship battles on this forum, let alone others.

If you really and truly think the law has been broken here, contact the authorities. Appeal to Mr Randi. Heck, I'd suggest you reopen your own forum, and post there anything you want to post about how terrible I am. I promise not to sue, or even threaten to do so.

hal

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.

 

[Ed]

Steve,

I guess you are fairly clever, because I note that the below quote, which I certainly take as a threat, was in a PM to me 24hours and 57 minutes ago. So, I guess technically I can't match your demand.




If you really and truly think the law has been broken here, contact the authorities. Appeal to Mr Randi. Heck, I'd suggest you reopen your own forum, and post there anything you want to post about how terrible I am. I promise not to sue, or even threaten to do so.

hal

WTF is old Steve talking about? Has he cracked for real?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Wow. Meltdown.


I'm almost sorry I stopped following this thread, so that I could follow the saga as it unfolded.


N/A

PS I will say that Batters -- from the material posted by/about him -- seems to be fairly objective and far more credible than the Keen reports had led me to believe. My original questions concerning his association with the case were never attempts to minimize his role or cast doubt on him, they were instead questions meant to discover just how accurate the information being reported by Keen actually was (and whether such inaccuracies made any difference to the people supporting the medium's case). I hope that he, and everyone else on the thread, did not take it any other way.

 

[tonyyouens]

Steve

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.

It doesn't require something to be true or not in order to cause the family distress. If they hear that a psychic or anyone for that matter, is describing how their daughter was murdered I think they would find it upsetting.

The remarks are general in nature and, as I have stated on my website, could easily be inferred from the known facts about the crime. Neither should people get the idea that these withheld details are gratuitously gory: they simply describe things such as her position, injuries and something of the struggle. Keen though might well consider them vital in proving his case and will publish and be damned - but I hope he won't.

This case was to be discussed on a BBC programme some time back and I was asked to contibute. They pulled the item in the end at the request of the family. This is a sensitive issue for them and one I wish Keen and Playfair had left alone, but had no one responded to Keen's challenge then he would have said that we were using this as an excuse. For example he wanted to raise this on the 'Ultimate Psychic Challenge' and when they didn't let him he seemed to think it was to protect us skeptic's from what he considers an ironclad example of something paranormal. Of course now Stumpy and I have provided the natural explanation he doesn't like it.

Tony

 

[SteveGrenard]

Prior to the links and the recent press release from Walter Reed, I defined biofield for you in a very definitive manner.

Did you happen to miss the prefatory remarks to the validating material TLN?

If not go back and read where I said the biofield is formed by the electrical potential produced within the body to the area outside the body. The links merely demonstrate that SRICO and the U.S. Army have now developed a means to confirm that, in fact measure or record that field using dry, non-contact electrode technology.

If I told you it was just the electrical activity outside the body that emanates from within it, you would challenge me to prove such energy exists. This would have been a perfectly reasonable challenge some years ago and I would've agreed with you we have no proof. But now the scientists at SRICO and the Army are claiming we do.

Do you accept this definition of the biofield now?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Hal:

I will ask the key question, no, reprint it one more time as it is the succinct answer to your original post:

"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."

 

[SteveGrenard]

TONY you are ignoring my supposition and I freely admit it is a supposition that the deleted lines may contain material not known to the public or press before Holohan gave them but were known to the police. This is key to invalidating or validating Holohan's account. If the body were lying in a certain position for example and that information was never released and now it is deleted from these notes, it certainly bespeaks the possibility of suppressing evidence which would support Holohan. Likwise it could provide evidence to impeach her. In either case its absence remains the ultimate problem.

Of course the deleted lines do not have to be true but if we dont know what they are we can never know whether they are true or not. Deleting true or untrue lines blurs the analysis for either side of the argument. It leaves it open to rife speculation such as we have seen here. I thought the release of the notes on your website would finally settle that for us.

Frankly if Hollohan got everything wrong or if everything she got was common knowledge, I would gladly agree she was defrauding the police. But we still can't rate her with accuracy.

I appreciate the heart ache this may cause Poole's family. Who (relationships would be fine, no names) in her family objected to the TV show and to these notes Batters deleted?

 

[tonyyouens]

Steve,

Stumpy you are ignoring my supposition and I freely admit it is a supposition that the deleted lines may contain material not known to the public or press before Holohan gave them but were known to the police. This is key to invalidating or validating Holohan's account.

Not Stumpy but Tony. I'm not ignoring your supposition. I am respecting the wishes of Tony Batters, I can do no more. I understand that you feel this is relevant information but I can't help you. You have my view on the statements and I accept you will have to withold judgement until you see them. Perhaps ask Keen.

If the body were lying in a certain position for example and that information was never released and now it is deleted from these notes, it certainly bespeaks the possibility of suppressing evidence which would support Holohan.

If it is evidence of suppression then it comes from Tony Batters who is actually convinced of Holohan's powers.

Who (relationships would be fine, no names) in her family objected to the TV show and to these notes Batters deleted?

I don't know which family member objected and it was Tony Batters who asked me not to publish these sections. I have seen them of course but he doesn't want them published for general circulation.

Tony (not Stumpy)

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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

No I am not attributing anything to you, so it is impossible for me to be misattributing it.

I'm asking if you think the credibility of the person who referred to Batters as the principal detective was damaged in your eyes by the fact that this statement is patently false, given your statement about credibility being destroyed by mislabelling.

I think you are well aware of what I was asking, after all everyone else seems to have understood it. Your failure to answer might lead an impartial observer to think you were being deliberately obtuse.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Jaggy, I did not fail to answer. After your inference was explained to me, I certainly did answer and did so at 1:23 PM today which was the time stamp on the post above a page or so back.....

Here it is again if you missed it:



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.

SG: 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?

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


I also explained previously but was ignored (and by the way this is ALSO irrelevant to the Jacqui Poole case and Holohan's role in that) that when I use the word "fact," I am eliciting information as to whether it is or isnt a fact. "Are you aware of the fact that it rains every night at 9PM?" To which you could answer "No, that is not true. It did not rain on Tuesday, Wednesay or last Friday at night." A matter of usage and an interpretation to suit your obection.

The FACT is Holohan did work there but I was not advised of in what capacity and I was not advised if she did mediumship on the base. But again, this was a side question for me which people who allegedly investigated her (Youens and Shaw) never actually answered other than to dance around it as something to impeach her on. It was a question from me. It is pathetic it is being used to somehow affect the case when more damaging information has been left out of Batters' published notes and nobody brought up the problems with that but just marched along.


Yes Tony, I said it before and will do so again. I will wait to see the published study and if the deleted text is not there, I will apply to yourself and or Keen to see it on the grounds I will keep it confidential if it is so disturbing. Just to get a second, or rather a third opinion.

 

[tonyyouens]

Steve,

The FACT is Holohan did work there but I was not advised of in what capacity and I was not advised if she did mediumship on the base. But again, this was a side question for me which people who allegedly investigated her (Youens and Shaw) never actually answered other than to dance around it as something to impeach her on.

I believe she worked at the base as a cleaner.

Tony

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Jaggy, I did not fail to answer. After your inference was explained to me, I certainly did answer and did so at 1:23 PM today which was the time stamp on the post above a page or so back.....

Here it is again if you missed it:



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.

SG: 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?

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


I also explained previously but was ignored (and by the way this is ALSO irrelevant to the Jacqui Poole case and Holohan's role in that) that when I use the word "fact," I am eliciting information as to whether it is or isnt a fact. "Are you aware of the fact that it rains every night at 9PM?" To which you could answer "No, that is not true. It did not rain on Tuesday, Wednesay or last Friday at night." A matter of usage and an interpretation to suit your obection.

The FACT is Holohan did work there but I was not advised of in what capacity and I was not advised if she did mediumship on the base. But again, this was a side question for me which people who allegedly investigated her (Youens and Shaw) never actually answered other than to dance around it as something to impeach her on. It was a question from me. It is pathetic it is being used to somehow affect the case when more damaging information has been left out of Batters' published notes and nobody brought up the problems with that but just marched along.


Yes Tony, I said it before and will do so again. I will wait to see the published study and if the deleted text is not there, I will apply to yourself and or Keen to see it on the grounds I will keep it confidential if it is so disturbing. Just to get a second, or rather a third opinion.

Could you highlight the bit of your message where you think you have answered the question?

Remember the question is what impact the mislabelling of Batters as the principal detective had on YOUR perception of the credibility of Keen. Therefore the ONLY person who can answer this is you - so your claim that Keen has answered this point is irrelevant.

You stated that mislabelling destroys credibility in your eyes. Can you confirm this applies to Keen as well as to "Rosa Mom"? If so, you presumably agree that his final report on this is of no value (as he has no credibility in your eyes). If not, could you explain why your standards are different for him?

As for your definition of fact, this seems to be case of words meaning what you want them to mean. I agree it has absolutely no bearing on the case. However for you to suggest that you made no statement or claim when you referred to something as a fact is clearly nonsense.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I am sorry Jaggy but I do not attack the person making the claim, I only attack the claim if it is deserving of that and this is where my opinions begin and end. So you can try your little weaseling game all you want, I will not engage in unprovoked ad hominems against the investigators in this case. I also said that the issue of Batters role is irrelevant to the thesis being advanced. If you wish to attack Detective Batters based on his role, you do it. I will not. Also since I do not speak to Batters directly I do not know what he has truly said to the investigators in this case (Youens, Shaw aka Stumpy, Keen or Playfair). We only have their word for Batters feedback just like we have their word that the deleted lines of text from the document are unimportant. So, therefore, Batters characterization as this or that is unimportant as well but truly so. Why you can't you see the difference?


e.g. the claim that Rosa was testing therapeutic touch when there was no therapy involved and with only 1 test subject, the investigator, is fallacious. I therefore am attacking Rosa the study , not their persons. I am sure Emily is a wonderful child as we heard here and her mom, as I said, has done some important work against outright quackery and healthcare fraud in Colorado. But the study was a farce and I am amazed that true skeptics can't see that. They need to go back and do it right or suffer that critcism.

I read this old letter from Emily's step dad saying he was willing to do that and wanted some proposals but apparently there has been no follow up testing, done properly, published.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am sorry Jaggy but I do not attack the person making the claim, I only attack the claim if it is deserving of that and this is where my opinions begin and end. So you can try your little weaseling game all you want, I will not engage in unprovoked ad hominems against the investigators in this case. I also said that the issue of Batters role is irrelevant to the thesis being advanced. If you wish to attack Detective Batters based on his role, you do it. I will not. Also since I do not speak to Batters directly I do not know what he has truly said to the investigators in this case (Youens, Shaw aka Stumpy, Keen or Playfair). We only have their word for Batters feedback just like we have their word that the deleted lines of text from the document are unimportant. So, therefore, Batters characterization as this or that is unimportant as well but truly so. Why you can't you see the difference?

I am not asking you for your opinion of the investigators in the case, nor am I attacking Batters. I am asking you why the blatant mislabelling by Keen of Batters role does not destroy Keen's credibility in your eyes, when you state that mislabelling by Rosa Mom does exactly that. Batters is not the issue, the role of Batters is not the issue. The issue is Keen's credibility as an investigator. Please do not try and pretend the question is about anything else.

Also do not pretend that you didn't attack Rosa Mom. You said she had no credibility, not that the claim had no credibility. Please do not try and pretend that is not an attack on a person rather than a claim. (As an aside, it could argued that accusing someone of playing weaseling games is an attack on the person )

e.g. the claim that Rosa was testing therapeutic touch when there was no therapy involved and with only 1 test subject, the investigator, is fallacious. I therefore am attacking Rosa the study , not their persons. I am sure Emily is a wonderful child as we heard here and her mom, as I said, has done some important work against outright quackery and healthcare fraud in Colorado. But the study was a farce and I am amazed that true skeptics can't see that. They need to go back and do it right or suffer that critcism.

I read this old letter from Emily's step dad saying he was willing to do that and wanted some proposals but apparently there has been no follow up testing, done properly, published.

You said that the mislabelling destroyed her credibility. Why do you not apply the same standard to Keen? Is it because you want to believe him and are therefore willing to ignore the evidence of mislabelling?

What was involved or not involved in the Rosa test is irrelevant. The question is about the standards you apply to establish the credibility of sources and whether you apply these consistently.

 

[SteveGrenard]

You still do not understand the difference between credibility of an individual and an experiment. Rosa's experiment had no credibility. When I refer to Rosa I refer to the experiment. This is common parlance in science. I have applauded momma Rosa (Linda)'s work in the field. She personally has no credibility problem with me.

On the other hand you wrote: "...destroy Keen's credibility." The mislabeling of a participant in an investigation (e.g. Batters) is not the same as mislabeling the entire hypothesis as was done in Rosa (the experiment -- not the person). You are clearly weaseling and trying to use rhetoric to attack Keen and Playfair personally. I have not attacked the character of either Emily or Linda Rosa, only their experiment. You are attempting to personalize the credibility issue.

Incidentally Keen justifies Batters role, regardless of what Batters says (we only have Youens word on that). It was reasonable for Keen to accord special status to Batters since he was first on the scene, spent 5+ hours securing it, and spent many months thereafter collecting, cataloging and maintaining the file on the case. He clearly deserved the credit Keen accords him. Youens and Shaw, although protesting this was not the case, have attempted to marginalize and triviliaize Batters role as if that would in some way impeach the investigation. And it was Batters and Andy Smith who interviewed Holohan and it was Batters who wrote up that interview. This makes Batters the principal in the case in my eyes as well. Neither Lundy or his boss (N McKinlay) interviewed and wrote up Holohan's interview and at the end of the day this is what this is about.

Also the mislabeling of a role played by a person in an investigation is not the same as conducting an experiment which fails to meet the burden of the hypothesis. Rosa (the study) has no credibility because:

a. it purports to test therapeurtic touch but there was no therapy involved; as Cox wrote in her critique of Rosa (the study), the
experiment also fails to convince because it decontextualized the claim.

b. the chief investigator (Emily) was not only a study subject, she was the ONLY study subject. How absurd. AT best anecdotal but not a controlled experiment by any stretch of the imagination. My goodness, if a researcher based his or her study based solely on the information he or she received for themselves from a medium the howls of derision from the people on this forum would be heard far and wide.

c. the Poole case is a case history, not an experiment. As such it is anecdotal and this is freely conceded. Every murder case is a case history and it is the only way this can be investigated and presented. Rosa (the study/experiment) on the other hand purports to offer us an experiment. It was poorly designed and thought out. Fine for a science fair project but it doesn't pass muster beyond that.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Steve, as I have patiently explained to you in previous posts, I am not attacking anybody. I am asking you a question about how YOU evaluate evidence provided by individuals.

You stated that the mislabelling of the experiment destroyed the credibility of an individual. You did not say it destroyed the credibility of the experiment. Please do not try and pretend otherwise. Therefore all of your post which is concerned with whether the test was carried out properly is irrelevant - that was not the reason you gave when explaining why Rosa Mom has no crediblity with you.

If, as appears to be the case, you believe that Keen did not mislabel Batters when he referred to him as the principal detective, then that would explain why you do not consider his credibility damaged by mislabelling. Why you don't just say that I don't know.

"She personally has no credibility problem with me."
"Since Rosa mom mislabeled the title of the study, she loses all credibility with me."

Two quotes from you referring to the same person. I am happy to leave it to others to judge who is weaseling and who personalised the credibility issue.

"When I refer to Rosa I refer to the experiment. This is common parlance in science."

More words mean what I want them to mean nonsense.

 

[SteveGrenard]

If you wish to play word games may I suggest you buy a book on the subject. Rosa's study loses credibility for reasons cited. If this means the author so be it -- but in reference to the study. Not in everything. You are trying very hard to play games and don't for one moment think this is not obvious. The Rosa study was not labeled/titled correctly. Rosa, the author(s) labeled their study incorrectly. They are culpable for this. I suggested the right title for this paper of Rosa's. Keen (and Playfair--why do you insist on impugning Keen when there are two authors?) did not mislabel the name of their study, which was not an experiment with a falsifiable hypothesis. Keen and Playfair are alleged to mislabel the role of a participant in the investigation. This is alleged by Youens and Shaw in an attempt to minimize, trivialize and demean the role of Detective Batters. Although he was a detective before and after this case, they called him a PC meaning Police Constable. This is a transparent effort on their part to cast doubt. In NYC we have detectives who wear uniforms and patrolmen/women who wear plain clothes. Such moves are ordered by command in response to special needs. What they wear doesn't change their status. Presumably there is a similar policy in the UK .

Therefore I agree with Keen that Batters was the principal officer/detective involved in the subject of Keen and Playfair's investigation so nothing is mislabeled except perhaps in the minds of Youens and Shaw who are trying to invalidate this case based on such irrelevant nonesense. Is that clear enough for you? If not, I don't care. I never agreed Batters per se was mistitled or mislabeled. That is the contention of Youens and Shaw. I do not accept their analysis backing up their assertion and never did. Hence your entire attempt is moot for me.

If Keen and Playfair's article is not correctly titled or does not meet the objectives and conclusions cited in the abstract, I will be more than happy to respond on that. In the meantime it is not yet published. We have to wait to Jan. 2004 ...not long.

I am going to cease corresponding with you about this because it is useless..... so if you want the last word knock yourself out.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

"Rosa's study loses credibility for reasons cited."

Which is of course a quite different claim from the one you actually made, which was that Rosa Mom lost credibility.

However, thank you finally answering the question I asked, i.e. that you do not believe there has been any mislabelling by Keen/Playfair. Had you simply said this in the first place we could have saved a lot of time.

"Hence your entire attempt is moot for me." As the only attempt I had was to get you to answer a question you have now answered, I'm not sure what this means.

Please stop the repeated claims that I am attacking or impugning anybody, its getting boring.