Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[Loki]

max,

The Mail published the outcome of the inquiry into the incident and reported that SCIENCE has confirmed that the dead barmaid spoke from her grave.

Just precisely *how* did SCIENCE confirm this? Please, in your own words, just a brief summary of the method/process used to establish this. A single sentence will do, no need to go too far. I'll take a failure to respond to this question as the equivalent of "I, max, don't actually know".

I suspect you're just stirring the pot here max, 'cos if you've paid any attention at all to the discussion of this case then you'd understand that Keen's claims are founded, yet again, in subjective interpretation of anecdotal evidence.

 

[mstricky]

oh I do pay attention but it seems that you don't. The result of the inquiry has only recently been published. the findings were made public in January but the Mail has only revealed the outcome yesterday. I don't need to do any research when the scientists are doing it. I've answered your interrogation, now admit that there may just be something going on here.

 

[Lothian]

oh I do pay attention but it seems that you don't. The result of the inquiry has only recently been published. the findings were made public in January but the Mail has only revealed the outcome yesterday. I don't need to do any research when the scientists are doing it. I've answered your interrogation, now admit that there may just be something going on here.

Max,

Think of it this way.

Scientists have proven that there is life after death and not only that, but it is possible to communicate with the dead. So how is this discovery that goes against current human knowledge announced. On the front page of every world newspaper, TV press conferences, nobel prizes….or an article in a UK tabloid. If it is true why have other papers not picked it up. Why do scientists not now openly admit they were wrong ?

You say you have followed this thread.

Who are the scientists that have proved this? At what institution do they work ? What controls took place in the experiment to stop cheating / alternative means of obtaining the information. How is their conclusion proof as opposed to a theory? Are there alternative theories? If there are alternative theories which has the most support (life after death or not) ? Who peer reviewed the paper? In which ‘respected’ scientific journal was it published?

This is not bad science because it is not science. It is gullible people with an agenda looking at unreliable notes deciding that the information therein had to be provided by the murder victim after their death when there are many more mundane explanations.

There is something going on here but it is not what you think.

 

[mstricky]

Well, shoot the messenger why don't you? I don't need proof, a dead girl spoke to me in a dream and told me the name of her murderer.
Go and research if you want more info. Why should I do your work.
Are you Loki's sockpuppet?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't need proof

Science does.

 

[mstricky]

yes and science has come up with the proof but tic- tic, thick -thicks still won't have it?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

yes and science has come up with the proof but tic- tic, thick -thicks still won't have it?

What proof are you referring to?

 

[mstricky]

keep up jaggy

 

[Lothian]

Well, shoot the messenger why don't you?

Max, You are not a messenger.

A messenger merely reports a story. Once you deviate from mere reporting you become the message sender.

You took the story, accepted it and then passed it on as true. You said

I am surprised there wasn't much reaction to the fact that science has comfirmed that a dead barmaid passed info to a psychic about her murderer.

YOU are now stating that science has confirmed…blah blah blah..

I don't need proof, a dead girl spoke to me in a dream and told me the name of her murderer.

I don’t disagree that you believe that.

Go and research if you want more info.

I have done all the research I feel I need to on this topic.

Why should I do your work.

You shouldn’t do my work, you certainly shouldn’t do the research in to this I have unless you are prepared to accept that your long held views might be wrong.

I am often wrong. I am sure beliefs I currently hold as true are considered wrong by others. I am equally sure that some of those same beliefs will be found by me, in the future to have been wrong, I hope people will point out my errors and I will continue to learn. I am prepared to accept that even my strongest held beliefs might be totally wrong.

I can not honestly say “nothing will sway me”. I suspect that you could and here we will differ.

Are you Loki's sockpuppet?

No. I didn’t realise the job was available. How do you apply?

 

[mstricky]

LOTHIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
The text you have chosen to highlight are quotes from the Daily Mail which I made quite clear that they were quotes further up the thread. I merely have passed on what was reported in a National newspaper, tabloid or not. There's another thread somewhere on here about an editors right to choose what stories he puts in his paper/mag It seems that only the Mail is bold enough.
Now I'm moving on to another thread. Don't have it I couldn't care less. As I said I'm only the messenger. You are all so adamant that I should come up with something in other threads. Well, now I have but you wont accept the info. so what can anybody do with a closed mind

 

[Lothian]

so what can anybody do with a closed mind

I think you said you were moving to another thread.

 

[The Don]

Just because the Daily Mail say it's so doesn't mean it is so

However, there seems to be a good prima facia (sp) case for there being a genuine contribution from the psychic into the Jacqui Poole murder case.

The contribution could be due to a combination of:

- Luck
- Non-psychic knowledge of the facts
- The ability to communicate with the victim post-mortem

I think what people here were trying to explore was the contribution of the first two.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

keep up jaggy

Well I've read the thread (but not the Daily Mail article) so I reckon I am fairly well up to speed.

Could you tell me what you consider to be scientific proof that "the dead barmaid spoke from her grave"?

 

[davidhorman]

I only half-heard it, but I believe Richard & Judy (which is on at 5pm on Channel 4 in the UK) will be discussing the Jacqui Poole case (there was something about murder and the after-life, and it's right up their street).

I'll let you all know if they talk about the "senior detective in charge" and a jumper recovered from a bin.

David

 

[mstricky]

No they are not discussing the Jaqui Poole case, you misheard, they have been talking about a novel about a girl who was raped and murdered and contacts her family after her death....fiction

 

[davidhorman]

No they are not discussing the Jaqui Poole case, you misheard, they have been talking about a novel about a girl who was raped and murdered and contacts her family after her death....fiction

Yup, my mistake... sorry for the false alarm!

David

 

[Loki]

Lothian,

I didn’t realise the job was available. How do you apply?

I'm sorry to disappoint, but there is no vacancy. Asgard has strict regulations regarding sock-puppets, and I'm not about to get Odin on my back just to keep max happy.

So you can't be my sock puppet - you may, however, drop by for some afternoon tea and scones any old time you like! We can discuss silly old max and his descent into Ian-like bandwidth wasting.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No they are not discussing the Jaqui Poole case, you misheard, they have been talking about a novel about a girl who was raped and murdered and contacts her family after her death....fiction

Are you ignoring my question?

 

[Lothian]

So you can't be my sock puppet - you may, however, drop by for some afternoon tea and scones any old time you like! We can discuss silly old max and his descent into Ian-like bandwidth wasting.

Love to drop by, if it wasn't on the wrong side of the world but if I am passing I would prefer a beer and shrimp on the Barbie to tea and scones, when in Rome etc.

However, I 'm not sure Max has descended. As I recall, his first appearance here was marred by a dodgy story about a key in which he refused to accept perfectly rational non-paranormal explanations and resorted to avoiding answering questions and asserting that; he was there, we weren’t and we should therefore take his word that paranormal events were occurring.

However, as woo woos go he is fairly pleasant (when off the gin !) and as Douglas Adams said 'Mostly harmless'.

 

[Vitnir]

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

This article has potential for a submission to SPR I think. I read the story by Tony Batters and then this one, nice example how you can make a case that seem strong when in reality there are lots of questions unanswered.