Jacqui Poole Murder Case

Tony,

I am reasonably certain that Mr. Batters is being honest regarding his recollections. I will even concede that Holohan was sincere in attempting to help the police with her visions. However ... As sincere as all of these people may be there appears to be the opportunity for the interpolation of objective knowledge into record, whether thru Batters or Holohan. The possibility of this in no way impeaches the integrity of either person.

That said, we are left with, as always seems to be the case with paranormal activity, with a highly equivical situation. Believers, such as Grenard and Keen, appear (to me) to arm wave and invoke irrelevancies (the exact title/role of Batters as a worthy of column inches of discussion, for example).

The simple fact, in my view, is that there is no reason to invoke the interaction of the discarnate with the corporial plane based on the "evidence". A world shaking interpretation, as this would be, requires a bit more solid proof.

Keens mind is made up. This is not terribly surprising since it would not enhance his personal revenue stream to issue an equivical report.

I have really not seen anything here, to date, that would lead me to believe that the visions could not have been informed by public knowledge. I suppose that it would be interesting to see, in columner fashion, the following

"Vision" What was publicly known (or known to the police) T/F

Rather too much to hope for, I fear.
 
Ed,

I suppose that it would be interesting to see, in columner fashion, the following
Click to expand...
Tony Batters has done such a list and I'm a happy to publish it here. However I would have to edit out names and other information that would mean even more [TEXT REMOVED] sections and thus be on the receiving end of more Genard criticism.

However my understanding from Tony Batters is that Keen will also be omitting the same segments so perhaps Genard will moan about that as well.

I'll have a look at what I can do. I would also want to publish my own comments along side.

I'll look into it.

Tony
 
ED: Believers, such as Grenard and Keen, appear (to me) to arm wave and invoke irrelevancies (the exact title/role of Batters as a worthy of column inches of discussion, for example).


Some corrections. I am not a believer. You claim I am. Please show me where I have ever said "I am a believer." Two...
your assertion regarding Batter's title role is rich. Youens and Shaw attempted to impeach the medium by minimizing triviliaizing and denigrating Batters role.
Neither Keen nor myself would have brought it up were it not for the fact that Youens used this irrelevancy to attempt to impeach the investigation by Keen and Playfair. From the start, if you recall Ed, Keen and Playfair felt that Batters had a pivotal role, was in fact "principal" in their investigation of the role of Holohan. It was then that Shaw (aka Stumpy) and then Youens jumped all over this stating that Batters was a nothing, a nobody, a cop in uniform. a lowly PC in fact, and an administrative clerk in the case.Keen and Playfair felt the opposite and still do. So get that straight.


ED: Keens mind is made up. This is not terribly surprising since it would not enhance his personal revenue stream to issue an equivical report.

Keen is not paid to investigate such cases nor does the JSPR pay him to write them up. This is done on a voluntary basis. Keen does not write books either like Youens. So if there is a revenue stream here, try pinning it on Youens. This was crass. It should occur to you that some people in this field have independent means and do this work for reasons other than money.

ED: I have really not seen anything here, to date, that would lead me to believe that the visions could not have been informed by public knowledge. I suppose that it would be interesting to see, in columner fashion, the following

Your opinion is noted. It is no less falsifiable than Youen's statements that there is no evidence to support the fact Holohan got her information from backyard or pub gossip.

ED: "Vision" What was publicly known (or known to the police) T/F

If it was known to the police does not mean it was known to the public. Your sneaky attempt to combine the two does not pass without note. The police often keep details of a crime secret. Where have you been? The public and the press does not know such details.
 
TY: However my understanding from Tony Batters is that Keen will also be omitting the same segments so perhaps Genard will moan about that as well.


Again, I must clarify my position on this. I am not moaning by the way. What I stated is that without some independent reviewer (besides Youens/Shaw and Keen/Playfair) seeing the deleted text, we the public are left in doubt over this.
I acknowledged the rationale Batters put forth regarding the family's sensibilities in the matter.
 
tonyyouens said:
Ed,


Tony Batters has done such a list and I'm a happy to publish it here. However I would have to edit out names and other information that would mean even more [TEXT REMOVED] sections and thus be on the receiving end of more Genard criticism.

However my understanding from Tony Batters is that Keen will also be omitting the same segments so perhaps Genard will moan about that as well.

I'll have a look at what I can do. I would also want to publish my own comments along side.

I'll look into it.

Tony
Click to expand...

That would be very helpful.. Thanks.
 
Originally posted by SteveGrenard


ED: "Vision" What was publicly known (or known to the police) T/F

If it was known to the police does not mean it was known to the public. Your sneaky attempt to combine the two does not pass without note. The police often keep details of a crime secret. Where have you been? The public and the press does not know such details.


If you followed the point that I was attempting to make you would have noted this:

"As sincere as all of these people may be there appears to be the opportunity for the interpolation of objective knowledge into record, whether thru Batters or Holohan. The possibility of this in no way impeaches the integrity of either person. "

You might consider some recent copyright infringment cases in music where an artist picked up a theme from someone else's song and used it inadvertantly. It happens and it is not paranormal. That is why what was known to any of the principles and when the documentation was written is so important. This mechanism is one whole hell of a lot likely to have been the case (given the timing) than some silly dead person talking to Holohan. Would you not agree? [/QUOTE]
 
Whether I agree or not would depend on the probabilities involved. Since this data has not been published as yet, I once again defer to the publication date of the report which will be in the JSPR January 2004.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Whether I agree or not would depend on the probabilities involved. Since this data has not been published as yet, I once again defer to the publication date of the report which will be in the JSPR January 2004.
Click to expand...

Don't go getting statistical on me. Such "probabilities" cannot be computed. For argument, if such a probablility was >0, you would have doubts? This is a post hoc thing anyway and meaningless.

If I show you the order of cards in a 52 card deck, the probability of that particular order is 1/52!. The probability has nothing to do with the reality. Similarly here, if my mechanism is right, even if the odds are 1/100! the mechanism is still the mechanism.
 
Well Ed, it is fascinating to see how statistics don't assume importance when they may impeach one's biases. Until we see all the data or someone sees it and rates it, you are speculating. Odds can be calculated for almost anything.

All I can also say to you in response to your last post is that unless or until we can see how many J names Holohan mentioned, the matter is still unresolved.
Eh?
 
SteveGrenard said:
Well Ed, it is fascinating to see how statistics don't assume importance when they may impeach one's biases. Until we see all the data or someone sees it and rates it, you are speculating. Odds can be calculated for almost anything.

All I can also say to you in response to your last post is that unless or until we can see how many J names Holohan mentioned, the matter is still unresolved.
Eh?
Click to expand...


Jesus wept
 
Did he? How do you know? How do you know there even was a person called Jesus? First prove he existed, then we can dsicuss whether he wept or not.
 
Without wishing to derail the thread, perhaps Lucian or SteveGrenard would care to explain what I did wrong, and why your average psychic medium isn't guilty of the same thing?
 
SG wrote

Whether I agree or not would depend on the probabilities involved. Since this data has not been published as yet, I once again defer to the publication date of the report which will be in the JSPR January 2004.
Click to expand...

The probabilities of what? How are you going to calculate the probablilites? The mere fact that you have to calculate probabilities suggests that there is more than one possiblility for how Holohan obtained her info. You then intend to calculate the probabilities to draw a conclusion as to the most likely explanation?

If that is the case then Tony Youens and I have proven our point. Keen asked for a non-paranormal explanation, presumably because he couldn't think of one himself. The fact that you reasonably don't dismiss our case but await Keen's report indicates our suggestion is possible.

Keen, to date, has not presented several possible alternatives and asked the reader to pick the most likely explanation. Such a process is entirely subjective, non-scientific and possibly pointless.
The absolute lunacy of Keen and Playfairs position is given away by the fact that they consider this case "to be the most impressive evidence yet for posthumous communication"!!

Before you make an subjective judgement of Holohan's accuracy you must make a subjective judgement on how accurate Batters notes were in relation to Holohans information. As Tony Youens points out, Batters has told him in an e-mail that the notes are incomplete, non-contemporaneous and with items added in afterwards. It is certainly not Batters fault that he couldn't keep up with Holohans commentary, as she appeared to be in a trance state at the time. Batters, I'm sure, has done the best possible job of recording the commentary under very difficult circumstances. However how do you judge how well he recorded the information? The only suggested corroboration allegedly comes from another officer who signed at statement confirming the accuracy of notes recorded some 18 years earlier! Did the DC with Batters at the time of the interview, read the notes and sign them as "a true and accurate record" immediately after the interview? It would appear not, otherwise why the need for a statement some 18 years later?

Once you have made your subjective assesment of how well the notes reflect the contents of Holohan's commentary, you then have to make a subjective judgement of how the content of the notes reflect what was in the public arena and what wasn't. How do you hope to achieve this without speaking to everyone who lived in the area at the time to establish what was and wasn't common knowledge outside the Police enquiry? You would also have had to speak to every officer in the investigation to see what information they fed back to the family via questions put to them regarding anomolies at the scene.

I submit that until this is done, then no-one can draw any firm conclusions regarding the paranormality or otherwise of this case.

regards

Stumpy
 
As with homeopathy, Steve will, in the guise of being open minded, cling to the possibility of some woo-woo reason regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Probabilities indeed. It only requires common sense.
 
Lucianarchy said:

You have commited far worse crimes here than anything any skeptic has ever levelled at any psychic in history. Well done.
Click to expand...

Familiar with every single example are you?.:rolleyes:

At least we don't masquerade as something we are not. You know, like supporting every dumb half baked woo woo cause imaginable and then presenting oneself as a 'skeptic'. Now that really would be unforgivable.
 
A sad note to update this thread.

The passing of Monty Keen.

Montague participated in this thread via Dr Grenard, for which we will remain eternaly grateful.

A man dedicated to truth, and the spirit of humanity.

Condolences to Montague's surving family.

See you later, Monty. Peace.



"I regret to inform you of the tragic death of my beloved husband, Montague Keen, on the 15th January. He died whilst attending a debate at the Royal Society of Arts, London. In accordance with his wishes, he will be cremated at 4pm on Thursday 22nd January at Hendon Crematorium, Holders Hill road, NW7. He will be in our home from 10am Wednesday until the time of the cremation. All friends welcome.

72 Southway, Totteridge, London N20 8DB.

Only family flowers, please; donations may be sent to the British Heart Foundation.

Veronica Keen


Some details from Dr. Bruce Greyson:

He was in the front row of the audience at the Royal Society of Arts for a debate between Rupert Sheldrake and Lewis Wolpert, the British skeptic. During the question-and-answer period, Monty rose to speak in support of Rupert, and in mid-sentence his voice faded and he lost consciousness from a heart attack. Two doctors in the audience immediately tried to resuscitate him, but he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. He was 79 and had had a triple bypass. He died as he would have wished, championing the cause of survival.



Bruce



Bruce Greyson, M.D.
Carlson Professor of Psychiatry
Division of Personality Studies
Department of Psychiatric Medicine
University of Virginia Health System"
 
I have seen a copy of the much vaunted report on the Jacqueline Poole murder case. Needless to say woefully inadequate as a "peer-reviewed" report and containing nothing I wasn't already aware of - except that Tony Batters died on 30th December 2003.

Despite his believing that this case demonstrated genuine evidence of post morten survival he was very open in providing me with information when asked to provide it. Credit were credit's due.

I shall be checking the details of the report in due course. If anyone is still interested?

Cheers

Tony
www.tonyyouens.com
 
Certainly I am.

I thought that this had all the hallmarks of a woo-a-thon a long time ago. Is the report on line?
 
Evidently there is an article in today's Daily Mail (UK) about psychic Christine Holohan and her supposed solving of the Jacqui Poole murder.

I've not read it yet but I think it uses material from the SPR report

Details of the skeptic's response can be found here

Cheers,

Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom