Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy: I note that the orginal assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" has now been modified to "principal person involved". In any event it was Keen who repeated the assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case. This is a very basic error (there are a number of others), if Keen's investigation cannot establish the most basic facts correctly how can it reasonably be relied on. It is very loyal and noble of you to now try and accept the blame for Keen's error but I don't think it is appropriate. A review of the original thread on here demonstrates that Keen repeated the assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case.


SG reply: We are now arguing a minor point that is not germane to the issue: Batters, as the person who wrote in the Police Federation article and subsequently confirmed, was the principal person, detective or constable or whatever you want to call him insofar, as the taking down of Holohan's report ... he, and of course, the other officer whose name is not given and which I will not disclose because you have not done so.



Stumpy: Are you absolutely certain about this?

SG: I base my remarks on his authorship of the article. Don't tell me Batters did not "write it down" but office X did... again, splitting hairs. Two officers interviewed Holohan. We both know that.

Stumpy: This, I think, is slightly unfair. We have reported the role of Constable Batters accurately. It wouldn't have been an issue if Keen had researched and reported his role accurately in the first place. Now, either Batters or Keen have vastly inflated the role of the officer to give the story a bit more credibility - who is responsible for this glaring error?

SG: Again, tell me how this "glaring error" impacts on the basic thesis of the claim made by Holohan, and, in fact, Batters in his article? If the best you can do is to split hairs, so be it. But then it seems this is the best you can do. I need more than that. I need proof that Holohan was somehow normally made aware of the 120 to 130 points of information she provided which were deemed correct by Batters and Officer X as presented in Batters' article in the PolFed magazine article.

The response of minimizing, trivializing, marginalizing and finally demonizing is a time worn one. We see it on this board, as practiced by certain parties, all the time. It is so shop worn it doesn't work anymore. Critical thinkers see past this tactic and need more information to base a decision on.



Stumpy: Do you then concede that this is a possible explanation in respect of Holohan and Batters?

SG: See above. Marginalizing Batters as TY & yourself have attempted to do does not provide an explanation. Its the appealing to authority argument in reverse where Batters is concerned and it is the appealing to authority argument in forward where McKinlay and Lundy are concerned. Neither McKinlay or Lundy interviewed Holohan but obviously took a pass
on her information. This is completely understandble considering the character of that information so they cannot be held responsible for doing that. But that doesn't change the facts
as they subsequently became known.

Stumpy: You have kindly responded to two of the many factual errors I highlighted when I posted the link to Tony Youens report. Have you a view on the other points that I raised?

SG: Keen will respond to those iems which he chooses to refute. Thank you for responding to my response. Until next time..........
(over which I have no control)

 

[Cleopatra]

In any event it was Keen who repeated the assertion that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case. This is a very basic error (there are a number of others), if Keen's investigation cannot establish the most basic facts correctly how can it reasonably be relied on.

Is it possible for us to know if Batters testified in court ?

I read the article again and he doesn't mention that it was him who testified in the trial.

If he didn't testify, his role in the case wasn't important.

Simple things.

 

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

We are now arguing a minor point that is not germane to the issue:

I don't agree that an investigation that is riddled with basic errors can be relied on, especially where that report is trying to validate an extraordinary claim. Fundamental errors in the investagative stage are acceptable as long as the "right" outcome is achieved? I don't hink so. In any event we are not arging the point, it is being evaded. It was repeatedly asserted that Batters was the "principal detective involved" in this case. Who is responsible for this error, Keen or Batters?

Don't tell me Batters did not "write it down" but office X did... again, splitting hairs. Two officers interviewed Holohan. We both know that.

Who wrote what, but more particularly WHEN is not splitting hairs. What if Batter's notes weren't written during the interview but sometime later? Would you agree that in that case the "origianl notes" simply couldn't be regarded as reliable?

Again, tell me how this "glaring error" impacts on the basic thesis of the claim made by Holohan, and, in fact, Batters in his article?

There are a whole series of glaring errors, not just one. If the basic claim, that this was a paranormal event is to be rebutted, then it puts an onus on us to show that there is some form of error or fraud at work. Even at this early stage we are highlighting the errors, you now claim that errors are irrelevant!

I need proof that Holohan was somehow normally made aware of the 120 to 130 points of information she provided which were deemed correct by Batters and Officer X as presented in Batters' article in the PolFed magazine article.

Would you agree that IF the notes outlining these 120 to 130 points were made not at the time of the interview but sometime later then they cannot be deemed to be a reliable account?

The response of minimizing, trivializing, marginalizing and finally demonizing is a time worn one.

Please explain where Tony Youens or I have done this? We have merely reported the facts accurately, by some mental gymnastics you seem to be suggesting that this is unfair! I could argue that the practice of exagerration, misinformation, blatant inaccuracy and pure error is a time worn one in respect of paranormal claims.

Stumpy: Do you then concede that this is a possible explanation in respect of Holohan and Batters?

SG: See above. Marginalizing Batters as TY & yourself have attempted to do does not provide an explanation. Its the appealing to authority argument in reverse where Batters is concerned and it is the appealing to authority argument in forward where McKinlay and Lundy are concerned. Neither McKinlay or Lundy interviewed Holohan but obviously took a pass

You have totally evaded the question here. Do you conceed that your very reasonable point that "even cops can be fooled by mediums" is a possibility in this case?

Neither McKinlay or Lundy interviewed Holohan but obviously took a pass

Are you certain about this?

But that doesn't change the facts

Are these the "facts" presented by Keen that are, in actuality, erroneous?

Stumpy: You have kindly responded to two of the many factual errors I highlighted when I posted the link to Tony Youens report. Have you a view on the other points that I raised?

SG: Keen will respond to those iems which he chooses to refute. Thank you for responding to my response. Until next time

This is evading the question again, I was asking for YOUR views not those of Keen.

regards

Stumpy

 

[Stumpy]

Hi Cleopatra

Our information is that Batters did not give evidence, he did not appear on the list of prosecution witnesses. Also in respect of the crucial notes allegedly taken by Batters and that Lundy allegedly failed to act upon; according to DCI McKinlay no such notes were submitted to the enquiry!

best wishes

Stumpy

 

[Garrette]

Steve,

In your recent posts you claim that Stumpy is (in my words) focusing on unimportant issues and not on the crucial parts of Batters' claims.

I disagree with this, but will leave that for Stumpy to argue.

Meantime, what issues of substance do you dispute? One of these, perhaps?

1) Ruark was the prime suspect and had been arrested prior to Holohan contacting the police.

2) Holohan gave no information to the police that was not already known.

3) Ruark was convicted because of the advance of technology and the persistence of the victim's family in pushing the police to keep trying.

4) The 120 specific statements are not, in fact, specific.

5) Holohan said she was first visited by the victim's spirit on the Sunday after the murders but also said it was after she had read newspaper accounts of the murder. This is impossible as Jackie's (the victim's) body was not found until Sunday, hence the first article did not appear until later.

6) Holohan said she was shown by Jackie's spirit all the specifics of the crime scene, meaning she knew--before she spoke to the police--everything there was to know. Yet Holohan had to go into a "trance" in Batters' presence to bring the information forth. Why?

7) Holohan gave significantly incorrect information along. (Saturday as the day of the murder as opposed to Friday; Ickeham; garden.)


Do you consider these items central to Batters' claim?

Do you dispute them?

 

[RonSceptic]

Isn't it odd that the 'principal person involved' in the investigation gave no evidence in court.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Youens Responds to Keen

Holohan has never repeated this success either before or after Mrs. Poole’s murder.


Tony Youens
Derbyshire

"Christina has been back in Ireland for the last 15 years and continues to work in Portlaoise as a very successful medium/psychic. "

http://archives.tcm.ie/carlownationalist/2001/09/17/story109.asp

 

[TLN]

Re: Re: Youens Responds to Keen

"Christina has been back in Ireland for the last 15 years and continues to work in Portlaoise as a very successful medium/psychic. "

http://archives.tcm.ie/carlownationalist/2001/09/17/story109.asp

Anecdotal.

Have any scientific evidence to submit Luci, or just more stories?

I thought you were a skeptic? How can you be a skeptic and know absolutely nothing about science?

 

[Cleopatra]

Stumpy

What sort of magazine is "The Police"?

Are they aware of the fact that the material they post is... controversial?

 

[Dragon]

Stumpy

What sort of magazine is "The Police"?

Are they aware of the fact that the material they post is... controversial?

"Police" magazine is published by The Police Federation which is the "trade union" (except we're not allowed a trade union) for officers from Constable up to Chief Inspector. All such officers belong to it - there are historical reasons for this.

The Federation is obviously mainly concerned about pay and conditions. It does not have any particular academic status although it does sometimes commission surveys and research.

The Police Federation does, of course, have a website. with links to Police magazine including back issues.

 

[Cleopatra]

Thanks Dragon


I understand that such a magazine cannot be academic but I think that phrases like this one

This story concerns one extraordinary aspect a out the case which could not e disclosed to the jury

should not be printed in a police magazine. What so ever. Why don't you e-mail them this thread ?

 

[Ipecac]

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. [snip]

A very well done series of posts, Garrette!

 

[SteveGrenard]

It is not at all revealing or significant that Batters did not eventually testify in Ruark's trial 18 years after the fact. Why should he? The mediumistic evidence he took down was not admissible in court when he first obtained it nor was it 18 years later. There was nothing Batters could offer the court in this case. The suspect, already in prison for another offense, was convicted on the basis of newly available DNA technology. This has been stated repeatedly from post 1 for those who missed it.

It has also been stated that with respect to the matter of the mediumnistic evidence which is now being debated Batters, however, was, is and along with his unnamed partner, remains the principal investigator involved with this aspect of the case. He is also is the author of the PolFed article like it or not as
some say here and above. In an effort to discredit his role in this part of the case, the only part of the case which we happen to be debating, Tony Yuens and Detective Stumpy want to trivliaize and marginalize Batters' role in the overall case as a means to discredit him.

So yes Stumpy, this is a time worn tactic. We need better evidence than this. I have not read any exaggerated claims on this case to make your opposite position valid. Only a recitation of the facts, all of which are published elsewhere and which everyone here has had a chance to read whether or not they read them or not.

The what ifs and anything is possible and the fact that cops as well as anybody can be fooled by a fraudulent medium are well and good but given the specifics presented with respect to the medium's report, we need a further airing of the case. I agree with those who said we should have an accounting of the 120 or 130 points of information. I will have to ask if this will be made, when and where (e.g. in the final journal article?).

Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability? Or should we even mention this? I was just wondering if you came across this and would be able to or could share this. If not, I will not say more about it.

 

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

It is not at all revealing or significant that Batters did not eventually testify in Ruark's trial 18 years after the fact.

But it is revealing and significant that Keen falsely asserted this in his earlier communications! You now seem to be conceeding that he didn't give evidence in court and that the assertion that he was the principal detective involved in the case is also wrong. If Keen was merely reporting what Batters had told him then, put bluntly, Batters is not telling the truth. Would you agree that the truthfullness of Batters is a central issue. If the errors are a consequence of Keen's mis-reporting then this should be acknowledged so that the suspicion that Batters is not being honest is removed.

At no point have Tony Youens or I attempted to discredit Batters role in the case, we have merely reported his role accurately.

You wanted to peer-review the material to date, like it or not this is a two way process. This process will only work if we agree the areas of fact and highlight the errors that are present. If we focus on the staements made by Batters, Keen, Youens and I instead of making spurious and baseless allegations of discrediting contributors we will manage to part the wheat from the chaff more easily. The peer-review process which YOU requested and we have agreed to, means dealing with each issue on a point by point basis. Please feel free to take issue with any aspect of Tony Youens report that you wish, we will discuss everything that you raise. We only ask that you do the same in return. Please therefore address the previous points that I have raised with you as part of the process which YOU requested.

I was not aware of the RAF project that Holohan was involved in. Where did this information come from, was it Holohan by any chance? This is a win-win situation for her, doubless I will email the MOD for confirmation of this, doubtless, if they wish to reply, they will deny any such project taking place, doubtless this will be re-joined by the predicable "well they would say that wouldn't they" response of the believers.

regards

Stumpy

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by lpecac

A very well done series of posts, Garrette!

Thank you. I'm blushin'.

 

[Garrette]

Steve,

any thoughts on the substance of Batters' claims as I listed previously?

 

[Cleopatra]

It is not at all revealing or significant that Batters did not eventually testify in Ruark's trial 18 years after the fact. Why should he?

You are wrong. It's very revealing and significant the fact that he didn't testify in court.

Detectives who lead the investigation in a murder case always testify, the court needed the testimony of the leading detective but it wasn't Batters who was asked to testify.

The mediumistic evidence he took down was not admissible in court when he first obtained it nor was it 18 years later. There was nothing Batters could offer the court in this case. The suspect, already in prison for another offense, was convicted on the basis of newly available DNA technology. This has been stated repeatedly from post 1 for those who missed it.

I think that in this forum most of us are already persuaded that it was the DNA technology that helped the suspect's conviction. Batters doesn't seem to think so though. He suggests that if the ghost could testify the suspect would be behind bars 18 years before. If he was the leading dective he 'd knew that the "evidence" that the medium provided was already known to the officers that they were investigating the case.

So he either lied or he had no idea about the investigation.

 

[Lucianarchy]

So he either lied or he had no idea about the investigation.

Batters was the OIC who investigated Ms H. Why are you ignoring this fact? It has nothing to do with Court evidence. Ms H was not used in Court as heresay is not admissable., whether it comes from the living, or the dead.

The issue here is the fact that Ms H provided corrobarative evidence which eventually nailed straight onto the perpetrator. Ms H is, was and still is a medium / psychic. There has been no refutation of this evidence short of accusations of criminal involvement, with no evidence, let alone proof.

This has got to be one of the worst, if not most dishonest attempts at debunking I have ever seen as a skeptic.

 

[Cleopatra]

You must be joking, aren't you?

I didn't say anything of what you attribute to me above.

Read my posts better before jumping into idiotic remarks.

 

[CFLarsen]

You must be joking, aren't you?

I didn't say anything of what you attribute to me above.

Read my posts better before jumping into idiotic remarks.

I think that's what Lucianarchy calls "psirony"....