Jacqui Poole Murder Case
- Thread starter SteveGrenard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- murder cases
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Actually it is the closed minded cynics who are forming provisional opinions. Regardless of Batters status, he was the one who was first on the scene, he was the one who spent the next 5 hours securing the scene, he was the one who interviewed Holohan and he was the one who kept the files on the case in order for many months. All of these together makes him the principal operative or detective in this case for the purpose of the psychic investigation. Lundy and McKinlay did not interview Holohan. Did you miss that? McKinlay didnt even know of her information or her existence. Lundy blew it off when he heard about it. His privilege.
Lundy, McKinlay and the technicality of Batters title are irrelevant to the real deciding factors in this case.
Irrespective of the above, for the last time, I am waiting to see the published report before forming any conclusions. It was Youens, then with the help of Shaw (aka Stumpy) who decided
to take Keen's bait and provide explanations which were not paranormal for the information provided. Clearly this attempted refutation, premature though it is, is in no way impacted by Batters's precise position. Some make it sound like Batters had no role whatsoever when in fact the reverse was true. Youens and Shaw must now also concede that Batters, not Lundy and not McKinlay, testified at Ruark's trial as well. Batters has the authority to speak on this matter, Lundy and McKinlay do not given these facts. There is nothing desperate about the truth. The tgruth is Batters is the onebeing referenced, Batters did what has been described for him and if it were not for his article in the Police Magazine Keen and Playfair would never have gotten interested in this case.
Batters also had the courage to write up his Holohan interview for the Police Magazine as well, and he provided those transcribed, typed notes to Keen and Playfair as well as to Youens and Shaw. I am dissapointed about the "text removed" lines which to me is a major stumbling block preventing any possibility of rating the information provided by Holohan in an honest, non-opinionated and scientific way. Right now we just have Tony Youens' opinion regarding those deletions. He will have to forgive me, but considering the position he holds in this debate, I would've liked to see those missing lines myself. I understand why they were deleted and I hope that Keen and Playfair at least reference their validity or non as well as allowing the peer reviewers at the JSPR to see them.
The bottom line in this case, the non-paranormal explanation, advanced by Shaw and Youens is that there was nothing Holohan told Batters and Smith that she could not have learned in the press or from neighborhood/pub gossip. They also say she could've gained entry to a similar flat for the purpose of describing Poole's. Supposition. Nothing short of a clear and concise rating of Batters' notes coupled with what was known by the police but not by the public/press is what this case hinges on.
Lundy, McKinlay and the technicality of Batters title are irrelevant to the real deciding factors in this case.
Irrespective of the above, for the last time, I am waiting to see the published report before forming any conclusions. It was Youens, then with the help of Shaw (aka Stumpy) who decided
to take Keen's bait and provide explanations which were not paranormal for the information provided. Clearly this attempted refutation, premature though it is, is in no way impacted by Batters's precise position. Some make it sound like Batters had no role whatsoever when in fact the reverse was true. Youens and Shaw must now also concede that Batters, not Lundy and not McKinlay, testified at Ruark's trial as well. Batters has the authority to speak on this matter, Lundy and McKinlay do not given these facts. There is nothing desperate about the truth. The tgruth is Batters is the onebeing referenced, Batters did what has been described for him and if it were not for his article in the Police Magazine Keen and Playfair would never have gotten interested in this case.
Batters also had the courage to write up his Holohan interview for the Police Magazine as well, and he provided those transcribed, typed notes to Keen and Playfair as well as to Youens and Shaw. I am dissapointed about the "text removed" lines which to me is a major stumbling block preventing any possibility of rating the information provided by Holohan in an honest, non-opinionated and scientific way. Right now we just have Tony Youens' opinion regarding those deletions. He will have to forgive me, but considering the position he holds in this debate, I would've liked to see those missing lines myself. I understand why they were deleted and I hope that Keen and Playfair at least reference their validity or non as well as allowing the peer reviewers at the JSPR to see them.
The bottom line in this case, the non-paranormal explanation, advanced by Shaw and Youens is that there was nothing Holohan told Batters and Smith that she could not have learned in the press or from neighborhood/pub gossip. They also say she could've gained entry to a similar flat for the purpose of describing Poole's. Supposition. Nothing short of a clear and concise rating of Batters' notes coupled with what was known by the police but not by the public/press is what this case hinges on.
steve Grenard wrote:
Precisely!! Tony Youens and I have made no claims in respect of the origin of Holohan's information precisely because we don't have this data. Yet Keen states that he has only spoken to two Police Officers and the psychic. This very limited and narrow approach can in no way establish the extent of Police/press/public knowledge of the details of case. Despite this, Keen has concluded that this case offers clear evidence of psychic ability. Are you now suggesting that Keen has spoken to all the Police officers on the investigation, recovered every last scrap of info reported in the press and spoken to every one who lived in the area? As you point out this is the ONLY way to draw any firm conclusions - unless you happen to be an investigator for the SPR, in which case a less than basic knowledge of the facts, misinterpreted and wrongly reported are more than sufficient to draw a conclusion apparently!
Stumpy
Precisely!! Tony Youens and I have made no claims in respect of the origin of Holohan's information precisely because we don't have this data. Yet Keen states that he has only spoken to two Police Officers and the psychic. This very limited and narrow approach can in no way establish the extent of Police/press/public knowledge of the details of case. Despite this, Keen has concluded that this case offers clear evidence of psychic ability. Are you now suggesting that Keen has spoken to all the Police officers on the investigation, recovered every last scrap of info reported in the press and spoken to every one who lived in the area? As you point out this is the ONLY way to draw any firm conclusions - unless you happen to be an investigator for the SPR, in which case a less than basic knowledge of the facts, misinterpreted and wrongly reported are more than sufficient to draw a conclusion apparently!
Stumpy
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
This is rich. It was Youens and Shaw that trivialized, minimized and demeaned Batter's position and role. I did not ramp it up. Who cares? It is indeed irrelevant. What I did do: I wasted half a day explaining to Jaggy why what he did made him important not what he was called. And this is no comparison to how the Rosa study was mislabeled and flawed. Great 4th grade science project but the politics that got this travesty into JAMA is something else.
Youens very succinctly said he felt that the deleted text did not prove anytrhing. This was clearly an opinion on his part.. People should be allowed to judge for themselves. If Batters wanted material deleted at the specific request of Poole's survivors (do we know who they are? no...) so b it. All I said is that this was dissapointing and the absence of such data will taint any rating of the entire interview.
This would depend on a careful rating of ALL of Holohan's data. with no deletions It remains to be seen how Keen and Playfair calculate this. On the one hand cynics demand mathematical certainty but when it suits their convenioence they just as easily use terms like "more likely" in reference to an alternative, non-paranomal causation rather than to a mathematical/statistical certainty of rating the data which was publicly and non-pubicly known.
My money if I had any would be on the odds against probability for any information Holohan gave which was known to the police but not released publicly and not in the newspapers. I agree 20 years after the fact makes determining this difficult, It will be interesting to see how Keen and Playfair deal with this problem. Youens and Shaw dealt with it by blowing it off. If Keen and Playfair do the same, its nil-nil for me and back to Robertson and Roy's new study for evidence of mediumship validity in general. I always accept the possibility that there are cases which are fraudulent and that there are mediums who are fakes.
tonyyouens
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 96
My prediction: They will find that it gives them further proof that Holohan was talking directly to a dead person and not popping down the pub.
It seems Holohan was living with her sister in Hillingdon and it is theoretically possible that this would help in any information gathering.
Regarding the [TEXT REMOVED] sections lets do brief test. Both Stumpy and I know what Holohan said about the position of the body but no one else on this forum does. So how about a few educated guesses? Holohan didn't say very much so just a brief description will do. I'll tell you if any of the descriptions are similar to Holohan's and whether they fit the facts as reported by Batters.
Tony
http://www.tonyyouens.com
tonyyouens said:
I'll have a go!
[psychic]
She was found on the floor, near the TV. One arm raised up above or near her head. One of the legs was bent, perhaps tucked under the other. She was lying face up. There are red marks around the neck. The eyes were open. The skin is pallid, a little grey. There's a glass or mug nearby.
[/psychic]
That'll do for now.
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
SteveGrenard said:
Then maybe in your first reply you should have answered the question I asked instead of making repeated unfounded accusations that I was attacking Keen/Playfair/Batters/whoever else you could think of, by asking YOU a question about the credibility YOU ascribe to different people based on their behaviour.
The content of the Rosa study is completely irrelevant - your statement about Rosa Mom's credibility refers ONLY to the mislabelling NOT the content of the report. You said that meant she had no credibility, NOT that the design of the study did so - pretending otherwise is simply lying. I wanted to see if you applied the same standards to Keen/Playfair - i.e. that if they mislabelled something they would lose all credibility. You claim you do as you don't believe they mislabelled anything. Why it took you so long to actually answer the question is a mystery.
I think anyone reading the thread can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not the role of Batters was accurately reported by Keen/Playfair. For you to suggest that it doesn't affect the credibility of a report if it contains glaring errors is remarkable.
tonyyouens
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 96
Okay the experiment is now over. Only one reply.
Well this is what Holohan appears to be saying about the position of the body. I say "appears" because when she states this position she doesn't say whether JP was still alive at this point or not. This is one of the [TEXT REMOVED] pieces but by itself I think it is okay.
Holohan as reported by Tony Batters said,
"1-Side. Lying face down."
which is a lot less than Ersby told us, but nonetheless according to Tony Batters Holohan's information was correct.
I'm not trying to make light of this but it illustrates the shear poverty of detail Holohan provided. It would hardly be likely that the body was still upright. What I'm not sure about is just how close this description really was or whether Batters is unconsciously fitting the facts to support the statement.
Still perhaps this will allow people to make a better assessment. I chose an example where Holohan was supposedly correct so as to put her in the fairest possible light but personally I'm not greatly impressed.
Tony
http://www.tonyyouens.com
Well this is what Holohan appears to be saying about the position of the body. I say "appears" because when she states this position she doesn't say whether JP was still alive at this point or not. This is one of the [TEXT REMOVED] pieces but by itself I think it is okay.
Holohan as reported by Tony Batters said,
"1-Side. Lying face down."
which is a lot less than Ersby told us, but nonetheless according to Tony Batters Holohan's information was correct.
I'm not trying to make light of this but it illustrates the shear poverty of detail Holohan provided. It would hardly be likely that the body was still upright. What I'm not sure about is just how close this description really was or whether Batters is unconsciously fitting the facts to support the statement.
Still perhaps this will allow people to make a better assessment. I chose an example where Holohan was supposedly correct so as to put her in the fairest possible light but personally I'm not greatly impressed.
Tony
http://www.tonyyouens.com
tonyyouens said:
Pardon me for being a bit cynical at this but in most crime dramas is not the body face down, or on the side with the face down. I think that this is generally done so that the hero or whoever can "reveal" the face and we can get a reaction shot.
I wonder if you reviewed cop shows on the telly for the preceeding week, how many plot details would match our psychic's?
1-Side. Lying face down.
My take is that this is nothing but wiggle room.
If body is on one side or the other. It's a hit.
If body is lying on it's stomach. It's a hit.
If body is lying on its back but contorted with the upper torso and head turned to the side, face dropping down. It's a hit.
Only if the body were flat on its back staring straight at the ceiling is this a miss.
My take is that this is nothing but wiggle room.
If body is on one side or the other. It's a hit.
If body is lying on it's stomach. It's a hit.
If body is lying on its back but contorted with the upper torso and head turned to the side, face dropping down. It's a hit.
Only if the body were flat on its back staring straight at the ceiling is this a miss.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Not content with trying to discredit the integrity and honesty of the police officer who took the interview, or the psychic who provided the police with the details, you sick f**ks are now picking over the corpse of the victim.
You have just destroyed the very thin thread your supposition based argument hung on, by vomitting your insentive and mean spirited psychologicial issues all over it.
You have commited far worse crimes here than anything any skeptic has ever levelled at any psychic in history. Well done.
As for Youens, your "explanation" is nothing more than suppostion, with no basis to fly it.
Ms H has a history of integrity, honesty and public spirit / duty. You, Youens, have no motive behind your wishfull thinking fallacy.
You have just destroyed the very thin thread your supposition based argument hung on, by vomitting your insentive and mean spirited psychologicial issues all over it.
You have commited far worse crimes here than anything any skeptic has ever levelled at any psychic in history. Well done.
As for Youens, your "explanation" is nothing more than suppostion, with no basis to fly it.
Ms H has a history of integrity, honesty and public spirit / duty. You, Youens, have no motive behind your wishfull thinking fallacy.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
I have to agree with you Luci. Certain parties above have taken the exposition of this to new depths. My sole concern regarding the removed text was that at some point, in a clinical context, should be made available for evaluation by more than just the warring parties in this exchange (e.g. Shaw/Youens and Keen/Playfair). I am deeply sorry if this was seen as a signal to trot this kind of evidence out on this forum. and I apologize should any family member become aware, hurt or offended by it. Having lost a loved one by nefarious means, I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are left behind to grieve and cope with such losses.
-----------------------------------------------
Keen has responded to Youen's latest account as follows. He has done so in context so Keen's remarks are preceded by the word "comment" to his responses:
Did a medium identify a murderer?
An investigation by Tony Youens and Adrian Shaw
(with further comments by Montague Keen.)
K: Tony Youens has issued (October 5th) an updated account of his attempt to provide a non-paranormal explanation of Christine Holohan's mediumistic statements about Jacqui Poole to two police officers in February 1983.
I have reproduced below extracts which I think merit further comment. However, I must say that it not simply fails to meet the challenge in my last analysis: it confirms my statement that Youens and Shaw have provided not a tittle of evidence to support a single one of their several assumptions, upon which the entire sceptical case is built. Where they have not ignored inconvenient facts altogether, they have absurdly belittled others with which they are uncomfortable. In all, a thoroughly dishonest and evasive effort.
--------------------------------------------------
His [Batters] role during the original investigation was largely administrative but he feels this gave him a good overview of the case and he was one of the few officers who remained involved throughout.
Comment: Considering the list of key roles he played, this is an obvious attempt to underplay Batters' role and knowledge of the case.
The argument for the paranormal hypothesis relies on the apparent lack of opportunity for Holohan to have come by her information by normal means. I suggest that if we can show that it was possible for Holohan to provide the information without recourse to mediumship then, as this is the simpler* explanation.
Comment: On the contrary, it is a misreading of the rule of Occam's Razor (as has been clearly pointed out in no less authoritative a journal than the current issue of The Skeptic), since the simpler and more obvious and less complicated explanation is ditched in favour of one based on a series of improbable speculations for which there is no supporting evidence
It is surely reasonable to assume that this murder is going to be the subject of intense local gossip. Particularly in places like The Windmill which was not only the place from which Ruark was taken but where he also regularly drank with his girlfriend as indeed did Jacqui Poole and her boyfriend. Jacqueline Poole had a wide circle of friends and acquaintances, including a close friend who told the police of Jacqui Poole's rejection of Ruark's attempts to flirt with her along with a great deal of personal information about Jacqueline herself. At this point the address of Christine Holohan becomes very significant. She lived only 1.3 miles from The Windmill Pub.
Comment: There is no evidence that Holohan ever visited the Windmill pub. She denies having been there. There was no-one at the Windmill pub who ever mentioned Holohan's name. None of Poole's friends and acquaintances knew her. Her name appears nowhere in Jacqui's phone directory or diary. She did not live or like a pub life. She would not have willingly associated with the sort of friends constituting Jacqui's circle. What right has Youens to assume the contrary?
As for the psychometry reading given to the detective constable at the time I’m afraid I dismiss this as simply cold reading doing its work. Police, no less than anyone else can be fooled. As far as I know there are no contemporary notes of what was actually said as opposed to what was remembered. If the information was what I think it was then I can see why the Detective was impressed but how he interpreted Holohan’s words may not be what she had actually intended. That he was amazed I have no doubt but by itself this is not very compelling. To date the officer in question has not responded to approaches from either myself or Adrian.
Comment: The officer concerned is named in the paper which Guy Playfair and I have written for the Journal of the SPR, and has endorsed it. Perhaps he views with contempt Youens and Shaw's efforts to ridicule his and Batters' recollection of what was clearly a dramatic, and traumatic, event. Youens is writing a book on cold reading, at which he must be considered an expert. It is not possible with cold reading to get the sort of precise detail (or for that matter the accurate forecast about an imminent job change) by cold reading, and Youens must know it.
Tony Lundy does remember Holohan being discussed and asked if she could provide some information that they didn’t know already, such as the location of the missing jewellery. A pity, as this would have been of considerable use to the investigation team.
Comment: Just repeating the same misstatement three times will not make it true. Batters has offered to show Youens the evidence strongly suggesting that Poole did actually attempt to provide evidence which, had it been correctly interpreted at the time, might well have pointed to the location of the spot where the murderer hid the jewellery. The fact that Holohan may have failed to describe the colour of the curtains or the type of shoes Jacqui was wearing in no sense detracts from or has any bearing on the accuracy and specificity of so many other statements.
It is impossible to know what sort of information was discussed publicly by the many friends and acquaintancies who knew Jacqui Poole. People like to play amateur detective and aspects of the crime could have been discussed. This is just conjecture on the part of Adrian and me and we leave others free to disagree.
Comment: No, it's not impossible. There was a very limited amount of information available to friends, relatives or the press by the time of the interview, and even less at the earlier time when Holohan telephoned the police offering to help.
There are a few trivial items that impressed Batters and his colleague and latterly Montague Keen, e.g.,"2 cups in kitchen. 1 washed up. She made cup of coffee"
Comment: The passage which follows shows Youens struggling. Twice he refers to this as trivia, when any normal person might reasonably conclude that it was striking evidence that the medium was imparting information she couldn't have gained normally. Then Youens goes into strangulated detail in an effort to play this down by inventing improbable scenarios for which there is no evidence: indeed there is some evidence that the scenario is false. The teacup references didn't produce evidence relevant to the crime, he argues. So what? That has absolutely no bearing on the question of paranormality. He speculates that, although he may not have entered the kitchen, the visitor who identified the body in the living room somehow spotted the cups on the draining board and noted that one was half full of coffee, intelligence he proceeded to impart to his presumed pub mates so that Holohan could have picked it up from a pub she says she's never even visited. Anyone who takes this sort of rubbish seriously will be in the front of the queue for Youens' book on faking mediumship. Significantly. Youens overlooks the no less important information confirming that the struggle must have started in the bathroom, which no-one but Batters had visited at the time. Likewise he takes care to ignore the evidentiality of Holohan's accurate reference to Christine's impending divorce, when her friends apparently believed that she was already divorced; or that she mentioned the name of her deceased best friend, who was not identified by the police until afterthe trial 18 years later; or that she gave the victim's maiden name, which had not appeared in the press; or described where another named friend lived, etc etc.
As Adrian noticed sometimes Holohan talks as if she is Jacqui Poole speaking directly through the Medium whilst at others she slips back into the third person.
Comment: It is a very familiar characteristic of mediumship communication that the medium switches in this way. There are volumes of recorded evidence to support this. Youens as well as Shaw is clearly unfamiliar with the subject he purports to write about.
Much has been made of the pullover retrieved from Ruark's dustbin and how if it wasn't for Holohan's information this might never have been seized? But just how significant did this piece of evidence turn out to be? When asked by Adrian Shaw, D.C.I. McKinlay couldn’t even remember the pullover. Tony Lundy does recall "fibres" being mentioned at the trial but he and McKinlay are emphatic that the conviction was achieved by the DNA evidence from semen and from and skin found underneath the victims fingernails. The pullover played no part and even if it did it was not due to anything Holohan had said.
Comment: Typical that Youens, instead of bothering to discover information about the pullover and its relevance from one or other of the two forensic experts who examined it, concentrates on evidence from two senior detectives, one of whom seems to have effaced the embarrassing recollection while the other had no reason to know anything about it, unless he had been present throughout the trial. But I must again point out that the issue of the pullover and its contribution to the jury's verdict is not relevant to the question of paranormality or the origin of Holohan's information. The pullover issue is wool over the reader's eyes.
What Tony Lundy is sure of, and he has re-stated this unequivocally, is that at no time during the investigation did he take any action based on information supplied by Holohan. He only ever followed normal police procedure.
Comment: I would consider it an inexcusable dereliction of police responsibility if, confronted with information of the sort provided by Holohan, the man in charge of the investigation took neither interest nor action. Why else would gardens have been dug up?
As far as I am aware the investigation carried out by Keen and Playfair never included the questioning of the two most senior and highly respected detectives involved. A serious omission surely? Still I'm certain he interviewed the medium herself with the typical thoroughness we've come to expect of an SPR investigator.
Comment: For, I trust, the last time, I must point out that the only people whose evidence was relevant to the question of paranormality were the two police officers involved in the interview and the medium. Is there no limit to the amount of dust which Youens seeks to throw in our eyes?
In Keen's worldview it seems communication with the dead is somehow entirely likely whereas a natural explanation is "improbable". Sentiments no doubt passed on to him by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Comment: No, my belief that such communication is entirely likely stems solely from an objective examination of the evidence over the past fifty years. Youens might one day pluck up enough courage, and find enough time, to look at it. He can start by tackling some of the twenty examples I have offered to Randi and others
Keen's ridiculous attempts to excuse her [Holohan] being wrong about the day of the murder is laughable [says Youens in a later communication to "Ed"]
Comment: This observation well illustrates the nature and degree of bias shown by someone who cannot begin to imagine the mental disorientation or turmoil in the discarnate mind of a newly murdered woman desperate to communicate with a sensitive in order to bring her attacker to justice. If you start out with the immoveable conviction that this is inherent nonsense, then you are forced to find ever more tortuously improbable excuses to explain away the messages. Those messages did not come through in the logical and ordered pattern one might expect from someone calmly sitting down to complete an examination paper, but in a disorderly, repetitive and sporadic manner likely to emerge from a distraught soul.
And by the way, my letter on this subject, just published in The Skeptic in response to Youens' attempt at a non-paranormal explanation, was written several months ago (it contains the long-since-corrected error about who retrieved the pullover). Is it too much to hope that Youens will have the integrity to acknowledge that he may have been mistaken?
-----------------------------------------------
Keen has responded to Youen's latest account as follows. He has done so in context so Keen's remarks are preceded by the word "comment" to his responses:
Did a medium identify a murderer?
An investigation by Tony Youens and Adrian Shaw
(with further comments by Montague Keen.)
K: Tony Youens has issued (October 5th) an updated account of his attempt to provide a non-paranormal explanation of Christine Holohan's mediumistic statements about Jacqui Poole to two police officers in February 1983.
I have reproduced below extracts which I think merit further comment. However, I must say that it not simply fails to meet the challenge in my last analysis: it confirms my statement that Youens and Shaw have provided not a tittle of evidence to support a single one of their several assumptions, upon which the entire sceptical case is built. Where they have not ignored inconvenient facts altogether, they have absurdly belittled others with which they are uncomfortable. In all, a thoroughly dishonest and evasive effort.
--------------------------------------------------
His [Batters] role during the original investigation was largely administrative but he feels this gave him a good overview of the case and he was one of the few officers who remained involved throughout.
Comment: Considering the list of key roles he played, this is an obvious attempt to underplay Batters' role and knowledge of the case.
The argument for the paranormal hypothesis relies on the apparent lack of opportunity for Holohan to have come by her information by normal means. I suggest that if we can show that it was possible for Holohan to provide the information without recourse to mediumship then, as this is the simpler* explanation.
Comment: On the contrary, it is a misreading of the rule of Occam's Razor (as has been clearly pointed out in no less authoritative a journal than the current issue of The Skeptic), since the simpler and more obvious and less complicated explanation is ditched in favour of one based on a series of improbable speculations for which there is no supporting evidence
It is surely reasonable to assume that this murder is going to be the subject of intense local gossip. Particularly in places like The Windmill which was not only the place from which Ruark was taken but where he also regularly drank with his girlfriend as indeed did Jacqui Poole and her boyfriend. Jacqueline Poole had a wide circle of friends and acquaintances, including a close friend who told the police of Jacqui Poole's rejection of Ruark's attempts to flirt with her along with a great deal of personal information about Jacqueline herself. At this point the address of Christine Holohan becomes very significant. She lived only 1.3 miles from The Windmill Pub.
Comment: There is no evidence that Holohan ever visited the Windmill pub. She denies having been there. There was no-one at the Windmill pub who ever mentioned Holohan's name. None of Poole's friends and acquaintances knew her. Her name appears nowhere in Jacqui's phone directory or diary. She did not live or like a pub life. She would not have willingly associated with the sort of friends constituting Jacqui's circle. What right has Youens to assume the contrary?
As for the psychometry reading given to the detective constable at the time I’m afraid I dismiss this as simply cold reading doing its work. Police, no less than anyone else can be fooled. As far as I know there are no contemporary notes of what was actually said as opposed to what was remembered. If the information was what I think it was then I can see why the Detective was impressed but how he interpreted Holohan’s words may not be what she had actually intended. That he was amazed I have no doubt but by itself this is not very compelling. To date the officer in question has not responded to approaches from either myself or Adrian.
Comment: The officer concerned is named in the paper which Guy Playfair and I have written for the Journal of the SPR, and has endorsed it. Perhaps he views with contempt Youens and Shaw's efforts to ridicule his and Batters' recollection of what was clearly a dramatic, and traumatic, event. Youens is writing a book on cold reading, at which he must be considered an expert. It is not possible with cold reading to get the sort of precise detail (or for that matter the accurate forecast about an imminent job change) by cold reading, and Youens must know it.
Tony Lundy does remember Holohan being discussed and asked if she could provide some information that they didn’t know already, such as the location of the missing jewellery. A pity, as this would have been of considerable use to the investigation team.
Comment: Just repeating the same misstatement three times will not make it true. Batters has offered to show Youens the evidence strongly suggesting that Poole did actually attempt to provide evidence which, had it been correctly interpreted at the time, might well have pointed to the location of the spot where the murderer hid the jewellery. The fact that Holohan may have failed to describe the colour of the curtains or the type of shoes Jacqui was wearing in no sense detracts from or has any bearing on the accuracy and specificity of so many other statements.
It is impossible to know what sort of information was discussed publicly by the many friends and acquaintancies who knew Jacqui Poole. People like to play amateur detective and aspects of the crime could have been discussed. This is just conjecture on the part of Adrian and me and we leave others free to disagree.
Comment: No, it's not impossible. There was a very limited amount of information available to friends, relatives or the press by the time of the interview, and even less at the earlier time when Holohan telephoned the police offering to help.
There are a few trivial items that impressed Batters and his colleague and latterly Montague Keen, e.g.,"2 cups in kitchen. 1 washed up. She made cup of coffee"
Comment: The passage which follows shows Youens struggling. Twice he refers to this as trivia, when any normal person might reasonably conclude that it was striking evidence that the medium was imparting information she couldn't have gained normally. Then Youens goes into strangulated detail in an effort to play this down by inventing improbable scenarios for which there is no evidence: indeed there is some evidence that the scenario is false. The teacup references didn't produce evidence relevant to the crime, he argues. So what? That has absolutely no bearing on the question of paranormality. He speculates that, although he may not have entered the kitchen, the visitor who identified the body in the living room somehow spotted the cups on the draining board and noted that one was half full of coffee, intelligence he proceeded to impart to his presumed pub mates so that Holohan could have picked it up from a pub she says she's never even visited. Anyone who takes this sort of rubbish seriously will be in the front of the queue for Youens' book on faking mediumship. Significantly. Youens overlooks the no less important information confirming that the struggle must have started in the bathroom, which no-one but Batters had visited at the time. Likewise he takes care to ignore the evidentiality of Holohan's accurate reference to Christine's impending divorce, when her friends apparently believed that she was already divorced; or that she mentioned the name of her deceased best friend, who was not identified by the police until afterthe trial 18 years later; or that she gave the victim's maiden name, which had not appeared in the press; or described where another named friend lived, etc etc.
As Adrian noticed sometimes Holohan talks as if she is Jacqui Poole speaking directly through the Medium whilst at others she slips back into the third person.
Comment: It is a very familiar characteristic of mediumship communication that the medium switches in this way. There are volumes of recorded evidence to support this. Youens as well as Shaw is clearly unfamiliar with the subject he purports to write about.
Much has been made of the pullover retrieved from Ruark's dustbin and how if it wasn't for Holohan's information this might never have been seized? But just how significant did this piece of evidence turn out to be? When asked by Adrian Shaw, D.C.I. McKinlay couldn’t even remember the pullover. Tony Lundy does recall "fibres" being mentioned at the trial but he and McKinlay are emphatic that the conviction was achieved by the DNA evidence from semen and from and skin found underneath the victims fingernails. The pullover played no part and even if it did it was not due to anything Holohan had said.
Comment: Typical that Youens, instead of bothering to discover information about the pullover and its relevance from one or other of the two forensic experts who examined it, concentrates on evidence from two senior detectives, one of whom seems to have effaced the embarrassing recollection while the other had no reason to know anything about it, unless he had been present throughout the trial. But I must again point out that the issue of the pullover and its contribution to the jury's verdict is not relevant to the question of paranormality or the origin of Holohan's information. The pullover issue is wool over the reader's eyes.
What Tony Lundy is sure of, and he has re-stated this unequivocally, is that at no time during the investigation did he take any action based on information supplied by Holohan. He only ever followed normal police procedure.
Comment: I would consider it an inexcusable dereliction of police responsibility if, confronted with information of the sort provided by Holohan, the man in charge of the investigation took neither interest nor action. Why else would gardens have been dug up?
As far as I am aware the investigation carried out by Keen and Playfair never included the questioning of the two most senior and highly respected detectives involved. A serious omission surely? Still I'm certain he interviewed the medium herself with the typical thoroughness we've come to expect of an SPR investigator.
Comment: For, I trust, the last time, I must point out that the only people whose evidence was relevant to the question of paranormality were the two police officers involved in the interview and the medium. Is there no limit to the amount of dust which Youens seeks to throw in our eyes?
In Keen's worldview it seems communication with the dead is somehow entirely likely whereas a natural explanation is "improbable". Sentiments no doubt passed on to him by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Comment: No, my belief that such communication is entirely likely stems solely from an objective examination of the evidence over the past fifty years. Youens might one day pluck up enough courage, and find enough time, to look at it. He can start by tackling some of the twenty examples I have offered to Randi and others
Keen's ridiculous attempts to excuse her [Holohan] being wrong about the day of the murder is laughable [says Youens in a later communication to "Ed"]
Comment: This observation well illustrates the nature and degree of bias shown by someone who cannot begin to imagine the mental disorientation or turmoil in the discarnate mind of a newly murdered woman desperate to communicate with a sensitive in order to bring her attacker to justice. If you start out with the immoveable conviction that this is inherent nonsense, then you are forced to find ever more tortuously improbable excuses to explain away the messages. Those messages did not come through in the logical and ordered pattern one might expect from someone calmly sitting down to complete an examination paper, but in a disorderly, repetitive and sporadic manner likely to emerge from a distraught soul.
And by the way, my letter on this subject, just published in The Skeptic in response to Youens' attempt at a non-paranormal explanation, was written several months ago (it contains the long-since-corrected error about who retrieved the pullover). Is it too much to hope that Youens will have the integrity to acknowledge that he may have been mistaken?
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
SteveGrenard said:
So you can complain if its omitted, and can complain if it isn't. Nice.
"Mr. Kettle, I have Mr. Pot on line two. He wanted to discuss colors."
Rather conveniently ignoring that the "challenge" is to investigate and prove precisely what information was available and how information may have been disseminated 18 years ago. They couldn't "meet tyhe challenge"? I am shocked. SHOCKED.
No. As it has been explained numerous times, this was "obviously" concern that someone reporting the facts made a conscious effort to bolster their conclusions by inflating Batters' position. Luckily, Mr. Batters comes across as far more credible than the reports which attempt to do so.
The fact that the persons making such a claim has altered it, chameleon-like, several times without ever admitting that it was an error was what kept the point alive, not the people making it.
I am not sure what rule you are using, but it isn't Occam's razor. Occam's is used to prevent the multiplication of entities -- i.e., adding supernatural effects if the phenomenon can be explained through othjer means. This is just saying that believing that the spirit communicated with a psychic is simpler than H. finding out things from other sources and/or guessing. That assertion may or may not be true, but it is not Occam's.
And here we have a pronouncement similar to the "impossible to explain by any other means" assertions that have been made previously.
Keen is seriously making the statement that "no one" at that pub "ever mentioned H.'s name. Really. Note that this is not "we have not found anyone remembering that H. was mentioned" or any other negative statement, but is a positive declaration that, almost two decades later, no mention was ever made.
I am eager to see the details of the investigation that lead to such a definite conclusion. Were Stumpy or Youens to make such a positive declaration, I am sure that it would be seized upon as a sloppy, overbroad pronouncement that clearly showed their bias. Just as I am sure that it, coming from Keen, will be ignored.
tonyyouens
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 96
Hello again,
I’ll answer Keen’s ill conceived reply in a moment but I suppose a quick comment regarding our self righteous believers “Lucianarchy” and Steve Grenard.
“I have to agree with you Luci. Certain parties above have taken the exposition of this to new depths.”
Steve, that you agree with Luci’s foul mouthed offering does you no credit but I suppose your enemy’s enemy is your friend. My demonstration was merely to show the paucity of information supplied by Holohan. Ersby gave a great deal more information and as a result got one aspect wrong, for all we know other aspects may be correct. If others had joined in then I think they may have done as well as Holohan. Unfortunately we’l never know. I don’t intend to dwell on this point as I regard your newly discovered ethics to be little more than a cynical ploy to gain some sort of moral high ground. Perhaps it is some consolation for having such a weak argument regarding the rest of the subject.
On to Keen’s reply. From the tone of his commentary he is somewhat irked at having had his challenge met head on. When it suits him he conveniently misses certain points so I’ll write this slowly to give him time to fully absorb its implications. Adrian (Stumpy) and I have only attempted to see if an alternative, naturalistic explanation was possible. This we have clearly achieved. We never held any expectation of proving it conclusively. That said I think the explanation we have put forward is more likely than post-mortem communication.
Despite much argument I believe we are all agreed on certain central facts. I know Tony Batters and I are pretty much agreed anyway. Much of the information Holohan supplied about Jacqui Poole and Anthony Ruark was public knowledge even before the crime took place. From my own experience it is quite possible to know a great deal of information about someone without them knowing anything at all about you. If someone is the subject of local gossip, for whatever reason, then it is possible to hear about it.
I’ll now deal with Keen’s comments. If I quote my original text then his comment, then my comment about his comment, it will become very cumbersome. Therefore I shall just quote Keen’s comments and reply to that.
Keen …it confirms my statement that Youens and Shaw have provided not a tittle of evidence to support a single one of their several assumptions, upon which the entire sceptical case is built. Where they have not ignored inconvenient facts altogether, they have absurdly belittled others with which they are uncomfortable. In all, a thoroughly dishonest and evasive effort.
I have yet to see or hear any evidence at all from Keen that proves the paranormal hypothesis. None, zilch. Keen certainly ignores facts. E.g. the distance Holohan lived from The Windmill. It is 1.3 miles. I know I’ve driven from one to the other several times. Keen said she lived over three quarters of an hour away. He wrote (via Grenard, 10-04-2003) “Holohan lived in a different part of the area, about three quarters of an hour's walk away - she depended on public transport.” What was her “dependency” on public transport got to do with anything. I suggest she can walk 1.3 miles or be offered a lift. This doesn’t indicate a very thorough investigation does it?
But what about this belittling that Adrian and I are guilty of?
I wrote: His [Batters] role during the original investigation was largely administrative but he feels this gave him a good overview of the case and he was one of the few officers who remained involved throughout.
Comment: Considering the list of key roles he played, this is an obvious attempt to underplay Batters' role and knowledge of the case..
This is what Tony Batters said to me in an email on 09/29/2003:
I'll add now that my role during the investigation was mostly administrative, although key, except I did take many statements.
On what then does Keen based his accusation that I am belittling Batters role? I would like Keen to retract this and apologise.
Comment: On the contrary, it is a misreading of the rule of Occam's Razor (as has been clearly pointed out in no less authoritative a journal than the current issue of The Skeptic), since the simpler and more obvious and less complicated explanation is ditched in favour of one based on a series of improbable speculations for which there is no supporting evidence.
What a topsy-turvey world Keen inhabits. Given the choice he thinks after death communication makes the least number of assumptions? He is assuming that a non-physical entity can affect a physical body. How exactly? He is assuming that somewhere along our evolutionary journey to homo sapien we acquired a spirit body. How exactly? He assumes that this entity can survive death and that certain people can communicate with them. How? Or are you basing your assumptions of farcical “experiments” like those at Scole? Where the spirits themselves were allowed to vet those taking part in the “experiments”. Where infra red cameras were not allowed.
Before you ask, yes I have read the report.
Comment: There is no evidence that Holohan ever visited the Windmill pub. She denies having been there. There was no-one at the Windmill pub who ever mentioned Holohan's name. None of Poole's friends and acquaintances knew her. Her name appears nowhere in Jacqui's phone directory or diary. She did not live or like a pub life. She would not have willingly associated with the sort of friends constituting Jacqui's circle. What right has Youens to assume the contrary?
There is no evidence that I have ever visited The Windmill – but I have. She denies it you say? Golly I’m really stumped now. So none of Poole’s friends and acquaintances knew her. How many have you spoken to exactly. All of them I suppose. Perhaps you’ve also checked with her friend’s friends? I expect you checked that they didn’t know Holohan’s sister either. I see how lax your standards are when it comes to supporting your own theory. If Adrian or I made such a comment you’d be challenging us to prove it. So I’m challenging you. Prove it!
Understand this I don’t care what Holohan told you, that is completely beside the point. I do not say Holohan is lying but I do say it is possible she was lying and this possibility must be removed. I do not assume Holohan mixed with Poole’s circle of friends (all of which you seem to cast aspersions on), I suggest it is possible. The fact that she wasn’t in JP’s diary does not remove the possibility of contact.
Comment: The officer concerned is named in the paper which Guy Playfair and I have written for the Journal of the SPR, and has endorsed it. Perhaps he views with contempt Youens and Shaw's efforts to ridicule his and Batters' recollection of what was clearly a dramatic, and traumatic, event. Youens is writing a book on cold reading, at which he must be considered an expert. It is not possible with cold reading to get the sort of precise detail (or for that matter the accurate forecast about an imminent job change) by cold reading, and Youens must know it.
More supposition, but thank you for acknowledging my expertise in cold reading. Alas it seems I can’t return the compliment. As for the job change I’m afraid it is standard cold reading fare. “I see some kind of change coming along soon, perhaps connected with your career. This will be a very positive change. Blah… blah…blah”
Comment: Just repeating the same misstatement three times will not make it true. Batters has offered to show Youens the evidence strongly suggesting that Poole did actually attempt to provide evidence which, had it been correctly interpreted at the time, might well have pointed to the location of the spot where the murderer hid the jewellery. The fact that Holohan may have failed to describe the colour of the curtains or the type of shoes Jacqui was wearing in no sense detracts from or has any bearing on the accuracy and specificity of so many other statements.
Oh dear I think I’ll have to spoil the surprise. Holohan is supposed to have written down a number “221” and the word “Ickenham” (a nearby town). Tony Batters discovered that there is only one road in Ickenham that has a house number this high. At this location, 18 years later, he discovered a man made hole. Thus we are meant to conclude this was Ruark’s temporary hiding place. As mentioned previously a statement can be “accurate” but not necessarily detailed.
Comment: No, it's not impossible. There was a very limited amount of information available to friends, relatives or the press by the time of the interview, and even less at the earlier time when Holohan telephoned the police offering to help.
Not at all. A great deal of information would have been known about both the victim and her murderer.
Keen’s next bit is very long so I’ll concentrate on one particular piece (I comment on all of it if you like – you only have to ask);
He speculates that, although he may not have entered the kitchen, the visitor who identified the body in the living room somehow spotted the cups on the draining board and noted that one was half full of coffee, intelligence he proceeded to impart to his presumed pub mates so that Holohan could have picked it up from a pub she says she's never even visited.
Holohan, as quoted in Tony Batter’s notes said, “2 cups in kitchen . 1 washed up. She made cup of coffee.” So tell me when did Holohan mention one was “half full of coffee” exactly? Or that they were on the draining board? I suggest Keen sticks entirely to the known facts and not put words into Holohan’s mouth that were never there. This statement is ambiguous enough to be cold reading. Or perhaps we should take it literally. JP had only 2 cups in her entire kitchen, only one of which had been washed up, and she made a cup of coffee at some unspecified time. Very helpful. That must have put the police right on Ruark’s trail.
Comment: It is a very familiar characteristic of mediumship communication that the medium switches [from first to third person] in this way. There are volumes of recorded evidence to support this. Youens as well as Shaw is clearly unfamiliar with the subject he purports to write about.
That all mediums do this is in no way indicative that this is paranormal.
Comment: Typical that Youens, instead of bothering to discover information about the pullover and its relevance from one or other of the two forensic experts who examined it, concentrates on evidence from two senior detectives, one of whom seems to have effaced the embarrassing recollection while the other had no reason to know anything about it, unless he had been present throughout the trial. But I must again point out that the issue of the pullover and its contribution to the jury's verdict is not relevant to the question of paranormality or the origin of Holohan's information. The pullover issue is wool over the reader's eyes.
Even if this pullover was the sole reason for Ruark’s conviction it has no bearing on the source of Holohan’s information. She never even mentioned the pullover (even though she supposedly ‘saw’ Ruark committing the murder). Amazing isn’t it? A detective discovers the pullover, which by his own admission as well as his commanding officer (Lundy) had nothing to do with any psychic but still Keen wants to give her credit for its discovery.
Comment: I would consider it an inexcusable dereliction of police responsibility if, confronted with information of the sort provided by Holohan, the man in charge of the investigation took neither interest nor action. Why else would gardens have been dug up?
I would consider it very worrying indeed if the police based their suspicions on the word of a psychic medium. If he did request the gardens to be dug up then Holohan can boast she wasted police time and resources.
Comment: For, I trust, the last time, I must point out that the only people whose evidence was relevant to the question of paranormality were the two police officers involved in the interview and the medium. Is there no limit to the amount of dust which Youens seeks to throw in our eyes?
And why are they so privileged? What credentials have they for evaluating psychics? This sounds like a feeble attempt to discredit Lundy.
Comment: No, my belief that such communication is entirely likely stems solely from an objective examination of the evidence over the past fifty years. Youens might one day pluck up enough courage, and find enough time, to look at it. He can start by tackling some of the twenty examples I have offered to Randi and others.
Like the Scole Report? I hereby challenge Montague Keen to produce the most gifted psychic he knows and I’ll test him. We can publish and agree the protocols here before testing begins. What have you got? What powers will they demonstrate? I’m waiting….
Tony Youens
I’ll answer Keen’s ill conceived reply in a moment but I suppose a quick comment regarding our self righteous believers “Lucianarchy” and Steve Grenard.
“I have to agree with you Luci. Certain parties above have taken the exposition of this to new depths.”
Steve, that you agree with Luci’s foul mouthed offering does you no credit but I suppose your enemy’s enemy is your friend. My demonstration was merely to show the paucity of information supplied by Holohan. Ersby gave a great deal more information and as a result got one aspect wrong, for all we know other aspects may be correct. If others had joined in then I think they may have done as well as Holohan. Unfortunately we’l never know. I don’t intend to dwell on this point as I regard your newly discovered ethics to be little more than a cynical ploy to gain some sort of moral high ground. Perhaps it is some consolation for having such a weak argument regarding the rest of the subject.
On to Keen’s reply. From the tone of his commentary he is somewhat irked at having had his challenge met head on. When it suits him he conveniently misses certain points so I’ll write this slowly to give him time to fully absorb its implications. Adrian (Stumpy) and I have only attempted to see if an alternative, naturalistic explanation was possible. This we have clearly achieved. We never held any expectation of proving it conclusively. That said I think the explanation we have put forward is more likely than post-mortem communication.
Despite much argument I believe we are all agreed on certain central facts. I know Tony Batters and I are pretty much agreed anyway. Much of the information Holohan supplied about Jacqui Poole and Anthony Ruark was public knowledge even before the crime took place. From my own experience it is quite possible to know a great deal of information about someone without them knowing anything at all about you. If someone is the subject of local gossip, for whatever reason, then it is possible to hear about it.
I’ll now deal with Keen’s comments. If I quote my original text then his comment, then my comment about his comment, it will become very cumbersome. Therefore I shall just quote Keen’s comments and reply to that.
Keen …it confirms my statement that Youens and Shaw have provided not a tittle of evidence to support a single one of their several assumptions, upon which the entire sceptical case is built. Where they have not ignored inconvenient facts altogether, they have absurdly belittled others with which they are uncomfortable. In all, a thoroughly dishonest and evasive effort.
I have yet to see or hear any evidence at all from Keen that proves the paranormal hypothesis. None, zilch. Keen certainly ignores facts. E.g. the distance Holohan lived from The Windmill. It is 1.3 miles. I know I’ve driven from one to the other several times. Keen said she lived over three quarters of an hour away. He wrote (via Grenard, 10-04-2003) “Holohan lived in a different part of the area, about three quarters of an hour's walk away - she depended on public transport.” What was her “dependency” on public transport got to do with anything. I suggest she can walk 1.3 miles or be offered a lift. This doesn’t indicate a very thorough investigation does it?
But what about this belittling that Adrian and I are guilty of?
I wrote: His [Batters] role during the original investigation was largely administrative but he feels this gave him a good overview of the case and he was one of the few officers who remained involved throughout.
Comment: Considering the list of key roles he played, this is an obvious attempt to underplay Batters' role and knowledge of the case..
This is what Tony Batters said to me in an email on 09/29/2003:
I'll add now that my role during the investigation was mostly administrative, although key, except I did take many statements.
On what then does Keen based his accusation that I am belittling Batters role? I would like Keen to retract this and apologise.
Comment: On the contrary, it is a misreading of the rule of Occam's Razor (as has been clearly pointed out in no less authoritative a journal than the current issue of The Skeptic), since the simpler and more obvious and less complicated explanation is ditched in favour of one based on a series of improbable speculations for which there is no supporting evidence.
What a topsy-turvey world Keen inhabits. Given the choice he thinks after death communication makes the least number of assumptions? He is assuming that a non-physical entity can affect a physical body. How exactly? He is assuming that somewhere along our evolutionary journey to homo sapien we acquired a spirit body. How exactly? He assumes that this entity can survive death and that certain people can communicate with them. How? Or are you basing your assumptions of farcical “experiments” like those at Scole? Where the spirits themselves were allowed to vet those taking part in the “experiments”. Where infra red cameras were not allowed.
Before you ask, yes I have read the report.
Comment: There is no evidence that Holohan ever visited the Windmill pub. She denies having been there. There was no-one at the Windmill pub who ever mentioned Holohan's name. None of Poole's friends and acquaintances knew her. Her name appears nowhere in Jacqui's phone directory or diary. She did not live or like a pub life. She would not have willingly associated with the sort of friends constituting Jacqui's circle. What right has Youens to assume the contrary?
There is no evidence that I have ever visited The Windmill – but I have. She denies it you say? Golly I’m really stumped now. So none of Poole’s friends and acquaintances knew her. How many have you spoken to exactly. All of them I suppose. Perhaps you’ve also checked with her friend’s friends? I expect you checked that they didn’t know Holohan’s sister either. I see how lax your standards are when it comes to supporting your own theory. If Adrian or I made such a comment you’d be challenging us to prove it. So I’m challenging you. Prove it!
Understand this I don’t care what Holohan told you, that is completely beside the point. I do not say Holohan is lying but I do say it is possible she was lying and this possibility must be removed. I do not assume Holohan mixed with Poole’s circle of friends (all of which you seem to cast aspersions on), I suggest it is possible. The fact that she wasn’t in JP’s diary does not remove the possibility of contact.
Comment: The officer concerned is named in the paper which Guy Playfair and I have written for the Journal of the SPR, and has endorsed it. Perhaps he views with contempt Youens and Shaw's efforts to ridicule his and Batters' recollection of what was clearly a dramatic, and traumatic, event. Youens is writing a book on cold reading, at which he must be considered an expert. It is not possible with cold reading to get the sort of precise detail (or for that matter the accurate forecast about an imminent job change) by cold reading, and Youens must know it.
More supposition, but thank you for acknowledging my expertise in cold reading. Alas it seems I can’t return the compliment. As for the job change I’m afraid it is standard cold reading fare. “I see some kind of change coming along soon, perhaps connected with your career. This will be a very positive change. Blah… blah…blah”
Comment: Just repeating the same misstatement three times will not make it true. Batters has offered to show Youens the evidence strongly suggesting that Poole did actually attempt to provide evidence which, had it been correctly interpreted at the time, might well have pointed to the location of the spot where the murderer hid the jewellery. The fact that Holohan may have failed to describe the colour of the curtains or the type of shoes Jacqui was wearing in no sense detracts from or has any bearing on the accuracy and specificity of so many other statements.
Oh dear I think I’ll have to spoil the surprise. Holohan is supposed to have written down a number “221” and the word “Ickenham” (a nearby town). Tony Batters discovered that there is only one road in Ickenham that has a house number this high. At this location, 18 years later, he discovered a man made hole. Thus we are meant to conclude this was Ruark’s temporary hiding place. As mentioned previously a statement can be “accurate” but not necessarily detailed.
Comment: No, it's not impossible. There was a very limited amount of information available to friends, relatives or the press by the time of the interview, and even less at the earlier time when Holohan telephoned the police offering to help.
Not at all. A great deal of information would have been known about both the victim and her murderer.
Keen’s next bit is very long so I’ll concentrate on one particular piece (I comment on all of it if you like – you only have to ask);
He speculates that, although he may not have entered the kitchen, the visitor who identified the body in the living room somehow spotted the cups on the draining board and noted that one was half full of coffee, intelligence he proceeded to impart to his presumed pub mates so that Holohan could have picked it up from a pub she says she's never even visited.
Holohan, as quoted in Tony Batter’s notes said, “2 cups in kitchen . 1 washed up. She made cup of coffee.” So tell me when did Holohan mention one was “half full of coffee” exactly? Or that they were on the draining board? I suggest Keen sticks entirely to the known facts and not put words into Holohan’s mouth that were never there. This statement is ambiguous enough to be cold reading. Or perhaps we should take it literally. JP had only 2 cups in her entire kitchen, only one of which had been washed up, and she made a cup of coffee at some unspecified time. Very helpful. That must have put the police right on Ruark’s trail.
Comment: It is a very familiar characteristic of mediumship communication that the medium switches [from first to third person] in this way. There are volumes of recorded evidence to support this. Youens as well as Shaw is clearly unfamiliar with the subject he purports to write about.
That all mediums do this is in no way indicative that this is paranormal.
Comment: Typical that Youens, instead of bothering to discover information about the pullover and its relevance from one or other of the two forensic experts who examined it, concentrates on evidence from two senior detectives, one of whom seems to have effaced the embarrassing recollection while the other had no reason to know anything about it, unless he had been present throughout the trial. But I must again point out that the issue of the pullover and its contribution to the jury's verdict is not relevant to the question of paranormality or the origin of Holohan's information. The pullover issue is wool over the reader's eyes.
Even if this pullover was the sole reason for Ruark’s conviction it has no bearing on the source of Holohan’s information. She never even mentioned the pullover (even though she supposedly ‘saw’ Ruark committing the murder). Amazing isn’t it? A detective discovers the pullover, which by his own admission as well as his commanding officer (Lundy) had nothing to do with any psychic but still Keen wants to give her credit for its discovery.
Comment: I would consider it an inexcusable dereliction of police responsibility if, confronted with information of the sort provided by Holohan, the man in charge of the investigation took neither interest nor action. Why else would gardens have been dug up?
I would consider it very worrying indeed if the police based their suspicions on the word of a psychic medium. If he did request the gardens to be dug up then Holohan can boast she wasted police time and resources.
Comment: For, I trust, the last time, I must point out that the only people whose evidence was relevant to the question of paranormality were the two police officers involved in the interview and the medium. Is there no limit to the amount of dust which Youens seeks to throw in our eyes?
And why are they so privileged? What credentials have they for evaluating psychics? This sounds like a feeble attempt to discredit Lundy.
Comment: No, my belief that such communication is entirely likely stems solely from an objective examination of the evidence over the past fifty years. Youens might one day pluck up enough courage, and find enough time, to look at it. He can start by tackling some of the twenty examples I have offered to Randi and others.
Like the Scole Report? I hereby challenge Montague Keen to produce the most gifted psychic he knows and I’ll test him. We can publish and agree the protocols here before testing begins. What have you got? What powers will they demonstrate? I’m waiting….
Tony Youens
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
tonyyouens said:
You haven't even provided any evidence, just pure supposition.!Sceptic my Hoyt,
Indeed, given the complete lack of evidence, I think you should apologise.
tonyyouens
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 96
Ed, A while back you asked ....
This raises more questions. Did Batters unconsciously select what he heard and thus allow a certain bias to creep into the notes? How accurate was the "one or two points" that he added later? Tony Batters did not use shorthand and it is extremely hard to record speech verbatim (this has been confirmed to me by a police officer). Anyone who has tried to write notes at a lecture will realise just how difficult it is. It is far easier to write down the meaning rather than the precise words. I have no doubt that Tony Batters endeavoured to give an honest and accurate account of what Holohan said but this does allow room for doubt.
On the other hand TB points out that he may have missed information that would further support Holohan. He suggests she may have even mentioned Ruark using cord but he missed it.
Anyway this gives a fuller answer to your question.
Tony
My understanding throughout is that the notes were written as they were spoken by Holohan. A recent email alters things slightly. Tony Batters informs me that he thinks the notes may well be incomplete as when he wrote them he was always a sentence or two behind. Also he tells me that he did in fact remember one or two points on his return to the police station and only at that point added them to the list .
This raises more questions. Did Batters unconsciously select what he heard and thus allow a certain bias to creep into the notes? How accurate was the "one or two points" that he added later? Tony Batters did not use shorthand and it is extremely hard to record speech verbatim (this has been confirmed to me by a police officer). Anyone who has tried to write notes at a lecture will realise just how difficult it is. It is far easier to write down the meaning rather than the precise words. I have no doubt that Tony Batters endeavoured to give an honest and accurate account of what Holohan said but this does allow room for doubt.
On the other hand TB points out that he may have missed information that would further support Holohan. He suggests she may have even mentioned Ruark using cord but he missed it.
Anyway this gives a fuller answer to your question.
Tony