Yes I read that and Telegraph mentions that Tony Lundy --who lead the original inquiry-- flew from Spain for the trial. This is an interesting detail but I find more interesting the absence of any reference to the info Lucy posted above.
Jacqui Poole Murder Case
- Thread starter SteveGrenard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- murder cases
Lord Kenneth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,604
Don't you people know? It's the evil skeptic conspiracy! In fact ALL MURDERS are solved by the help of PSYCHICS, but evil negative-vibration rays from skeptics cloud the truth.
SteveGrenard said:
I am not trying to be argumentitive but how do you know that? How do you know it was not filed under "nut job"? Seriously, I expect that cas files are full of all sorts of crap. This sounds like an assertion without meaning necessarily adhering to it.
The link for Tony Youens report will be on-line within the next 60 mins (barring any technical disasters). It may be worthwhile in the meantime reviewing M.Keens comments, posted via Steve Grenard, in respect of this case in the original thread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7420
Stumpy
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7420
Stumpy
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Ed said:
Ed: Please read Detective Batters' account in the UK Police Federation's magazine at the link given in Youens' e-mail above
and decide how or where the "report" was filed. This is the report that piqued Keen and Playfair's interest in the case.
This is how I know Batters recorded the medium's statement but do I know where and how it was filed? No.
Cleo: Yes, there are no Telegraph or BBC accounts online re the psychic's involvement in this case, only the UK Police Federation article I refer to just above is available online.
SteveGrenard said:
First of all let's get something straight. I want you to be true. Regardless my personal opinion about mediums I read every information anticipating to be persuaded but as you understand in order to be persuaded I need logical evidences or logical theories.
This story poses me some difficulties, maybe I am missing clues.
For example, in the site of the Police Federation we have a reference to the trial that was held on Aug.2001 according to which the "hot info" regarding the medium were not disclosed to the Jury.
Why? I do not believe that the police officers that testified weren't asked in a detailed manner about the previous investigation.
I hope that you understand that if we had the references to the medium in the records of the trial, things would be different. But we don't.
Also, what mediums want most ? Publicity. Why Christina didn't came to the Press after the trial to inform the general public that it was she that has provided the Police with the important info?
Okay here is the link to Tony Youens report:
http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm
There are a number of glaring (and basic) errors in Keen's "meticulaous investigation. I will quote a few items previously posted by Keen under the original thread.
Emphatically incorrect. Tony Batters was NOT the principal detective involved, in fact, he WAS NOT EVEN A DETECTIVE!!! Batters was a beat officer who was first to attend the scene, he was retained on the enquiry to perform administrative tasks on the enquiry. Now Keen's repeated assertions to the contrary on have two explanations, either Batters is lying about his role OR Keen has made an assumption that turned out to be hopelessly wide of the mark, which is it?
Incorrect, Batters had only an office based admin role in this case the people intimately involved in this investigation were Det Supt Lundy and Det Chief Inspecter McKinlay, neither of whom were spoken to by Playfair and Keen but have been spoken to by Tony Youens and I.
The records reffered to above have not been officially released by the Metropolitan Police for ANY review. How then did Playfair and Keen come by them?
No record of the alleged interview with Holohan was submitted to the enquiry by any Police Officer.
No he wasn't! He did not give evidence, he wasn't called as part of the prosecution evidence. He did turn up in his own time and observed the proceedings.
See Tony Youens article. Ruark was the Prime suspect before Holohan was allegedly interviewed - this was widely known in the area.
DCI McKinlay who lead the re-opened case and has all the facts states that he has no knowledge of the sweater. The ONLY DNA evidence submitted in evidence was that taken from the body of the deceased.
The article by Tony Youens more fully covers this case.
Thank you
Stumpy
http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm
There are a number of glaring (and basic) errors in Keen's "meticulaous investigation. I will quote a few items previously posted by Keen under the original thread.
Emphatically incorrect. Tony Batters was NOT the principal detective involved, in fact, he WAS NOT EVEN A DETECTIVE!!! Batters was a beat officer who was first to attend the scene, he was retained on the enquiry to perform administrative tasks on the enquiry. Now Keen's repeated assertions to the contrary on have two explanations, either Batters is lying about his role OR Keen has made an assumption that turned out to be hopelessly wide of the mark, which is it?
Incorrect, Batters had only an office based admin role in this case the people intimately involved in this investigation were Det Supt Lundy and Det Chief Inspecter McKinlay, neither of whom were spoken to by Playfair and Keen but have been spoken to by Tony Youens and I.
The records reffered to above have not been officially released by the Metropolitan Police for ANY review. How then did Playfair and Keen come by them?
No record of the alleged interview with Holohan was submitted to the enquiry by any Police Officer.
No he wasn't! He did not give evidence, he wasn't called as part of the prosecution evidence. He did turn up in his own time and observed the proceedings.
See Tony Youens article. Ruark was the Prime suspect before Holohan was allegedly interviewed - this was widely known in the area.
DCI McKinlay who lead the re-opened case and has all the facts states that he has no knowledge of the sweater. The ONLY DNA evidence submitted in evidence was that taken from the body of the deceased.
The article by Tony Youens more fully covers this case.
Thank you
Stumpy
The link isn't working!
Go to www.tonyyouens.com, click on "sitemap" then the link entitled "Did a medium identify a murderer"
Will try and get this sorted!
Stumpy
Go to www.tonyyouens.com, click on "sitemap" then the link entitled "Did a medium identify a murderer"
Will try and get this sorted!
Stumpy
Are you kidding? If I were the defendant's attorney, I would dig up this information and use it to sow doubt about the whole investigation.Cleopatra said:
Would it work? To an extent, sure!
This is a case of post hoc, pure and simple.
CFLarsen said:
Please Mr. Larsen do not interfere with the interrogation of the witness
Of course you are right! There is no way that such info wasn't brought to Court.
I cannot access the site Stumpy provided but I think I know why Tony Batters didn't mention anything of those in court ; probably he never testified because he didn't have a significant role in the case...
Plus the fact , Stumpy, that if the role of Christina was so significant her story would take greater publicity than Madonna's kiss... the whole noise that Media made was about the new roads that DNA tests open for us not about the role mediums play in resolving murder cases.
DOH! Damn internet!
Try cutting and pasting this into your address bar:
http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm
Try cutting and pasting this into your address bar:
http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm
Pardon me for appearing jaded but it always seems to follow the same course. Breathless assertion by a decidedly interested observer, great debate on the assertion and details provided, battle lines drawn, examination of the real data, prosaic explanation.The fact, seems to be, that they had the villain in their sights early on and when technology allowed they nailed him. Is that about it? Also, the idea that a copper would have leeway in taking anything from a crime scene seems ludicrous to me. Nothing is ever a clear woo-woo win with these stories. One has to ask oneself "why is that so?"
Now, let us play copper. What does Mr. Monegue Keene have to gain by trumping up a story? Anything?
Now, let us play copper. What does Mr. Monegue Keene have to gain by trumping up a story? Anything?
Well, Ed I thought about it myself.
That's why I attempted to approach the story backwards; from the end ( the trial) to the beginning : why those clues weren't brought to court? Which officer took the risk to hide such info from court and why? Honestly I do not believe that any police officer would have an interest to hide things from the court.
That's why I attempted to approach the story backwards; from the end ( the trial) to the beginning : why those clues weren't brought to court? Which officer took the risk to hide such info from court and why? Honestly I do not believe that any police officer would have an interest to hide things from the court.
Stumpy said:
BS, give yourself more credit.
You know we, I, get accused of being close minded. I think I am more now than I was 5 years ago. But Jesus Christ on the Millenium Wheel WTF can you expect? What, that eventually they will construct some loony story that can't be disproven in a second? The woo-woo arguments are not so much arguments as intellectual erosion. You sort of get worn down to the point where you say "yeah, whatever". And funnily enough, there are always reporters right about an inch from the woo-woos.
I sorta can see the frauds' point. It is easy work, it must be intellectually stimulating, you can come out with ANYTHING and some loon will buy into it, there is BY DEFINITION NO SUCH THING AS DAMAGE CONTROL IN WOO-WOO LAND. They probably get to pick up chicks a lot more than your average sceptic. Plus they get to "peer review" each other's papers.
The news guys too are understandable. Hell, which is better 1) DNA nabs murderer or 2) GHOST FINGERS BAD GUY!!!!!. They have to sell papers.
I don't get the believers. They are like soylant green. Weird.
About a year ago on TVtalkshows, a poster named Pete (whom I believe to be Lucianarchy under another name) posted the Poole murder case as a solid example of psychics solving crimes.
We debunked it then (Lurker springs to mind). I don't recall Steve being in on the conversation, but it is disingenuous of Luci to bring it up now as if he/she doesn't know any better.
This post and the next couple are nearly verbatim copies of my posts on that board (minor grammatical fixes and such):
Okay, this after a quick search. If I were in the UK, I'd contact the agencies and look for files from the initial investigation in 1983 and then re-opened investigation in 2001.
There are 3 sources supporting the psychic-solved-the-crime version. You'll find several websites, but if you trace them, you'll find only three sources that are repeatedly referenced. The first is an article by James Millbank that appeared in "News of the World" on August 26, 2001. The second is an unattributed article appearing in "Psychic News". The third, and most detailed, is the article written by Tony Batters, an investigator on the initial case; its title is "But Ghosts Can't Testify?". This article appeared in the December 2001 issue of Police Magazine.
Do a search on Ruark and Poole and murder, and you'll find other articles discussing the solution to this murder, but these other articles, amazingly, attribute the reason to science and persistence.
at news.bbc.co.uk you'll find "How Sciece Caught Up With Killer", and "DNA Cathces Killer After 18 Years," both dated August 24th, 2001.
at www.bucksfreepress.co.uk is "DNA Linked Suspect to Barmaid's Death" dated August 17th 2001 (a few days before his sentencing)
and at www.solvethecrime.co.uk is "Scientific Expertise and DNA Database Combine to Catch Killer," also dated August 24th, 2001.
****************************
Undisputed facts of the case:
Jackie Poole (maiden name Jackie Hunt) was murdered on February 11th, 1983, in her apartment in Ruislip at the age of 25.
Jackie had a lover/boyfriend at the time: Anthony Ruark, then aged 23.
Ruark was immediately a prime suspect but could not be positively linked to the murder.
Prior to any meeting with the alleged psychic, Ruark "had already been interviewed as an acquaintance of the victim, he and his girlfriend having responded to an immediate police appeal. His subsequent arrest resulted from a lie in his witness statement that he was traveling by train at the critical time." (This is from the article that Batters wrote)
The investigation was closed down (not officially closed; unsolved murders are never closed in the UK) in 1984.
In 1998, the case was reopened. The Detective Chief Inspector gathered the original forensic items and sent them off to "the lab."
The Inspector also obtained DNA from Ruark whom he knew had been the prime suspect.
In 1999, the lab called the Inspector to say there was a match between Ruark's DNA and the semen found on Poole. Material found under Poole's fingernails was also found to match Ruark's DNA.
Ruark was convicted of the murder in 2001.
*************************************
Psychic Claims, as put forth by Tony Batters on behalf of Christine Holohan:
Within a few days of the murder, Batters and his partner were assigned to talk to Holohan, who had called the station and who also lived in Ruislip.
Holohan had been 'bothered' by psychic experiences since childhood.
Holohan claims in the "News of the World" article that "I lived in the area and had read about the murder in the papers. Then one night I woke up to find my bed shaking and the lights flickering. I thought: 'Oh my God!' then looked up and saw this blonde woman staring at me, tearing at my sheets in panic. Instantly I knew it was Jackie and she told me what had happened. Over the next few weeks she kept coming."
In Tony Batters' article (and remember, Tony is the one who actually spoke with her at the time), he says this: "She [Holohan] claimed she was repeatedly hearing the voice of a spirit who called herself 'Jackie Hunt'..." and "In a series of self-induced trances, the young woman gave us extraordinarily accurate details about the murder scene, as if she were reading my mind. I had been the first officer on the scene, where I remained for many hours. She described the scene just as I found it..."
First point: Note the SIGNIFICANT differences in method between the Batters article and the "News of the World" article. If Holohan were being visited by the victim and told what happened, then the "self-induced trances" are a sham. What is the purpose of a trance when the information is already known and needs only to be relayed?
Second point: The scene described in "News of the World" is a hypnogogic/hypnopompic hallucination to a T.
Third point: Batters admits that he knew the details of the murder scene prior to visiting Holohan. The interview is therefore "contaminated." If Holohan had written down all her observations without input from anyone having knowledge of the crime and forwarded them to a third party who then asked Batters to rate them, it would perhaps be impressive. Unfortunately, the manner in which this occurred leaves open the very real possibility that Batters was simply cold read by a Holohan who was either fraudulent or self-deluded.
And before you object that Batters' status as a cop would prevent any cold-reading, let me say that cops are as susceptible to this as anyone else, especially those with less experience. And remember: Batters was first on scene, hence, a beat cop, hence, lower rank and less experience.
I could go on, but there is nothing to indicate it is worth more effort.
We debunked it then (Lurker springs to mind). I don't recall Steve being in on the conversation, but it is disingenuous of Luci to bring it up now as if he/she doesn't know any better.
This post and the next couple are nearly verbatim copies of my posts on that board (minor grammatical fixes and such):
Okay, this after a quick search. If I were in the UK, I'd contact the agencies and look for files from the initial investigation in 1983 and then re-opened investigation in 2001.
There are 3 sources supporting the psychic-solved-the-crime version. You'll find several websites, but if you trace them, you'll find only three sources that are repeatedly referenced. The first is an article by James Millbank that appeared in "News of the World" on August 26, 2001. The second is an unattributed article appearing in "Psychic News". The third, and most detailed, is the article written by Tony Batters, an investigator on the initial case; its title is "But Ghosts Can't Testify?". This article appeared in the December 2001 issue of Police Magazine.
Do a search on Ruark and Poole and murder, and you'll find other articles discussing the solution to this murder, but these other articles, amazingly, attribute the reason to science and persistence.
at news.bbc.co.uk you'll find "How Sciece Caught Up With Killer", and "DNA Cathces Killer After 18 Years," both dated August 24th, 2001.
at www.bucksfreepress.co.uk is "DNA Linked Suspect to Barmaid's Death" dated August 17th 2001 (a few days before his sentencing)
and at www.solvethecrime.co.uk is "Scientific Expertise and DNA Database Combine to Catch Killer," also dated August 24th, 2001.
****************************
Undisputed facts of the case:
Jackie Poole (maiden name Jackie Hunt) was murdered on February 11th, 1983, in her apartment in Ruislip at the age of 25.
Jackie had a lover/boyfriend at the time: Anthony Ruark, then aged 23.
Ruark was immediately a prime suspect but could not be positively linked to the murder.
Prior to any meeting with the alleged psychic, Ruark "had already been interviewed as an acquaintance of the victim, he and his girlfriend having responded to an immediate police appeal. His subsequent arrest resulted from a lie in his witness statement that he was traveling by train at the critical time." (This is from the article that Batters wrote)
The investigation was closed down (not officially closed; unsolved murders are never closed in the UK) in 1984.
In 1998, the case was reopened. The Detective Chief Inspector gathered the original forensic items and sent them off to "the lab."
The Inspector also obtained DNA from Ruark whom he knew had been the prime suspect.
In 1999, the lab called the Inspector to say there was a match between Ruark's DNA and the semen found on Poole. Material found under Poole's fingernails was also found to match Ruark's DNA.
Ruark was convicted of the murder in 2001.
*************************************
Psychic Claims, as put forth by Tony Batters on behalf of Christine Holohan:
Within a few days of the murder, Batters and his partner were assigned to talk to Holohan, who had called the station and who also lived in Ruislip.
Holohan had been 'bothered' by psychic experiences since childhood.
Holohan claims in the "News of the World" article that "I lived in the area and had read about the murder in the papers. Then one night I woke up to find my bed shaking and the lights flickering. I thought: 'Oh my God!' then looked up and saw this blonde woman staring at me, tearing at my sheets in panic. Instantly I knew it was Jackie and she told me what had happened. Over the next few weeks she kept coming."
In Tony Batters' article (and remember, Tony is the one who actually spoke with her at the time), he says this: "She [Holohan] claimed she was repeatedly hearing the voice of a spirit who called herself 'Jackie Hunt'..." and "In a series of self-induced trances, the young woman gave us extraordinarily accurate details about the murder scene, as if she were reading my mind. I had been the first officer on the scene, where I remained for many hours. She described the scene just as I found it..."
First point: Note the SIGNIFICANT differences in method between the Batters article and the "News of the World" article. If Holohan were being visited by the victim and told what happened, then the "self-induced trances" are a sham. What is the purpose of a trance when the information is already known and needs only to be relayed?
Second point: The scene described in "News of the World" is a hypnogogic/hypnopompic hallucination to a T.
Third point: Batters admits that he knew the details of the murder scene prior to visiting Holohan. The interview is therefore "contaminated." If Holohan had written down all her observations without input from anyone having knowledge of the crime and forwarded them to a third party who then asked Batters to rate them, it would perhaps be impressive. Unfortunately, the manner in which this occurred leaves open the very real possibility that Batters was simply cold read by a Holohan who was either fraudulent or self-deluded.
And before you object that Batters' status as a cop would prevent any cold-reading, let me say that cops are as susceptible to this as anyone else, especially those with less experience. And remember: Batters was first on scene, hence, a beat cop, hence, lower rank and less experience.
I could go on, but there is nothing to indicate it is worth more effort.