To explain Holohan’s reading of Batters, let’s ask some questions:
1. What did she specifically say?
Answer: All we have is this statement by Batters, “However, of some 130 points Christine made, more than 120 now seem to have proved absolutely correct. Others could never be confirmed or disproved.” But Batters does not list the 130 points; instead, he mentions only these:
a. Holohan used the victim’s “unpublished” maiden name of Hunt instead of the published married name. Could be impressive, I’ll grant that. Then again, I’d like to see the newspaper accounts that Holohan admits having read prior to meeting Batters. I’d also like to know how big Ruislip is/was. Holohan lived in Ruislip as did Poole/Hunt. Know what Poole’s occupation was? Barmaid. Think she meets lots of people as a barmaid? I do. Think she ever strikes up a conversation with some patrons? I do. Think it reasonably possible for Holohan to have met Poole before her murder and gotten information from her? I do.
b. Holohan “described the scene just as I found it.” Unfortunately, Batters does not go into details about what Holohan actually said or what he said. Unconfirmable.
c. “including the victim’s position, clothing and injuries.” I’d like to know what Holohan actually said and how well it could be matched to any assaulted strangulation victims. Why must we assume that Batters is not demonstrating Sitter’s Bias? Further, the murder was in the papers. Without access to the actual articles, it’s impossible to say what Holohan could have gotten from them. Quite a bit, I’d wager.
d. “In a step-by-step reconstruction of the crime, she relayed a series of events which seemed to match the evidence.” I find this the silliest of Batters’ statements. First, this is a very vague claim—“Seemed to match”? Did it match the DETERMINED sequence of events or not? Exactly what did Holohan say? Second, if she knew as much as Batters is indicating, I can guarantee the police would have looked at her as a suspect. Batters, by failing to acknowledge that this occurred, strongly implies that it did not, thus weakening his case.
e. “…we initially thought the incident had taken place in the lounge, but she insisted it started in the bathroom. There was an overturned rug there, and a towel-rail had been pulled from the wall, later confirmed to us as very recent damage.” Note that Batters does NOT say that Holohan gave him the info about the overturned rug or towel-rail; only that these facts could support her theory that it started in the bathroom, which, by the very important way, Batters does NOT say was ever concluded to be true, indicating that the police stuck with their original belief that it started in the lounge. Two strikes here for Holohan, with a big strike for Batters who here very clearly displays his bias in wanting Holohan to be right.
f. And all these, quickly listed:
-“The killer had left two of the many rings she always wore” (Nothing said about Holohan’s exact words)
-“…the victim had just made coffee.”
-“…the position of some crockery in the kitchen” (rather a standard guess would suffice here)
-“…a letter in the lounge” (Ditto)
-“…disarranged seat cushions” (The paper had indicated a struggle; easy guess)
-“…unread newspapers” (Oh my; but this one is just too amazing to explain, dontcha think?)
-“…she also knew that Jackie was undergoing a divorce” (barmaid, remember; and news articles, especially given that Ruark had already been named as prime suspect and lover)
-“…suffering from depression” (Barmaid talk and easy guess from divorce info)
-“…just been given a prescription by her doctor” (I’d have to think more to explain this; I’ll call it a hit)
-“…she had not intended to be at home on the evening that she died” (Need more info; especially how Batters/the police could determine this themselves, though I know it’s possible)
-“…felt unwell” (follows with depression)
-“…two men had called at her door on innocent business, just before the murder.” (Need more info, but I’d wager this was in the papers, even if the police didn’t disclose it. Reporters can be nosy and ask neighbors what they saw; you think one might have noticed the two men who called? I do.
g. Finally, the most important of the hits, at least Batters says it is: Holohan wrote the killer’s name: Pokie. Which, in fact, turned out to be Ruark’s nickname. Let’s see now. Victim is barmaid. Victim has illicit affair with killer. Killer is fairly well known young man. Victim lives and works in same town where psychic lives and works. Killer has already been named as prime suspect prior to psychic talking to police. Too many opportunities for Holohan to get information for me to call it psychic. Sorry.
2. Why were there ANY misses by Holohan? And there were. Batters lists Ickeham, Garden, and, most tellingly, the date of the crime. Holohan said Saturday, when in fact it occurred on Friday. Interesting point here, in the form of a contradiction. I’ll quote Batters: “Jackie’s body was found on the Sunday, the day Christine claimed her ‘messages’ started.” Now, if you’ll go back to my first post and the quote from Holohan who says that she recognized the apparition as Jackie because she had read about the murder in the papers, you’ll see the problem. Sequence: Body is found on Sunday; Holohan is visited by Jackie on Sunday; articles appear on a day after Sunday; Holohan claims she read the papers before she was visited by Jackie. If you need more proof than this that it’s a fabrication, then I can’t help you.
To finish it up, let me just state that this is an obviously transparent fraud. Holohan presents contradictory stories and Batters presents nothing but indirect testimony with nothing verifiable. Beyond that, the case was solved separate from any input by Holohan.
1. What did she specifically say?
Answer: All we have is this statement by Batters, “However, of some 130 points Christine made, more than 120 now seem to have proved absolutely correct. Others could never be confirmed or disproved.” But Batters does not list the 130 points; instead, he mentions only these:
a. Holohan used the victim’s “unpublished” maiden name of Hunt instead of the published married name. Could be impressive, I’ll grant that. Then again, I’d like to see the newspaper accounts that Holohan admits having read prior to meeting Batters. I’d also like to know how big Ruislip is/was. Holohan lived in Ruislip as did Poole/Hunt. Know what Poole’s occupation was? Barmaid. Think she meets lots of people as a barmaid? I do. Think she ever strikes up a conversation with some patrons? I do. Think it reasonably possible for Holohan to have met Poole before her murder and gotten information from her? I do.
b. Holohan “described the scene just as I found it.” Unfortunately, Batters does not go into details about what Holohan actually said or what he said. Unconfirmable.
c. “including the victim’s position, clothing and injuries.” I’d like to know what Holohan actually said and how well it could be matched to any assaulted strangulation victims. Why must we assume that Batters is not demonstrating Sitter’s Bias? Further, the murder was in the papers. Without access to the actual articles, it’s impossible to say what Holohan could have gotten from them. Quite a bit, I’d wager.
d. “In a step-by-step reconstruction of the crime, she relayed a series of events which seemed to match the evidence.” I find this the silliest of Batters’ statements. First, this is a very vague claim—“Seemed to match”? Did it match the DETERMINED sequence of events or not? Exactly what did Holohan say? Second, if she knew as much as Batters is indicating, I can guarantee the police would have looked at her as a suspect. Batters, by failing to acknowledge that this occurred, strongly implies that it did not, thus weakening his case.
e. “…we initially thought the incident had taken place in the lounge, but she insisted it started in the bathroom. There was an overturned rug there, and a towel-rail had been pulled from the wall, later confirmed to us as very recent damage.” Note that Batters does NOT say that Holohan gave him the info about the overturned rug or towel-rail; only that these facts could support her theory that it started in the bathroom, which, by the very important way, Batters does NOT say was ever concluded to be true, indicating that the police stuck with their original belief that it started in the lounge. Two strikes here for Holohan, with a big strike for Batters who here very clearly displays his bias in wanting Holohan to be right.
f. And all these, quickly listed:
-“The killer had left two of the many rings she always wore” (Nothing said about Holohan’s exact words)
-“…the victim had just made coffee.”
-“…the position of some crockery in the kitchen” (rather a standard guess would suffice here)
-“…a letter in the lounge” (Ditto)
-“…disarranged seat cushions” (The paper had indicated a struggle; easy guess)
-“…unread newspapers” (Oh my; but this one is just too amazing to explain, dontcha think?)
-“…she also knew that Jackie was undergoing a divorce” (barmaid, remember; and news articles, especially given that Ruark had already been named as prime suspect and lover)
-“…suffering from depression” (Barmaid talk and easy guess from divorce info)
-“…just been given a prescription by her doctor” (I’d have to think more to explain this; I’ll call it a hit)
-“…she had not intended to be at home on the evening that she died” (Need more info; especially how Batters/the police could determine this themselves, though I know it’s possible)
-“…felt unwell” (follows with depression)
-“…two men had called at her door on innocent business, just before the murder.” (Need more info, but I’d wager this was in the papers, even if the police didn’t disclose it. Reporters can be nosy and ask neighbors what they saw; you think one might have noticed the two men who called? I do.
g. Finally, the most important of the hits, at least Batters says it is: Holohan wrote the killer’s name: Pokie. Which, in fact, turned out to be Ruark’s nickname. Let’s see now. Victim is barmaid. Victim has illicit affair with killer. Killer is fairly well known young man. Victim lives and works in same town where psychic lives and works. Killer has already been named as prime suspect prior to psychic talking to police. Too many opportunities for Holohan to get information for me to call it psychic. Sorry.
2. Why were there ANY misses by Holohan? And there were. Batters lists Ickeham, Garden, and, most tellingly, the date of the crime. Holohan said Saturday, when in fact it occurred on Friday. Interesting point here, in the form of a contradiction. I’ll quote Batters: “Jackie’s body was found on the Sunday, the day Christine claimed her ‘messages’ started.” Now, if you’ll go back to my first post and the quote from Holohan who says that she recognized the apparition as Jackie because she had read about the murder in the papers, you’ll see the problem. Sequence: Body is found on Sunday; Holohan is visited by Jackie on Sunday; articles appear on a day after Sunday; Holohan claims she read the papers before she was visited by Jackie. If you need more proof than this that it’s a fabrication, then I can’t help you.
To finish it up, let me just state that this is an obviously transparent fraud. Holohan presents contradictory stories and Batters presents nothing but indirect testimony with nothing verifiable. Beyond that, the case was solved separate from any input by Holohan.
