Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[Garrette]

Originally posted by LucianarchyBatters was the OIC who investigated Ms H. Why are you ignoring this fact?

If you really were "Pete" about a year ago on Tvtalkshows, then shame on you. You already know that this case is a pile of crap as far as supporting the claim that psychics help the police.

If you're not Pete, then my apologies, but you're still smart enough to know it's crap.

Do you have any idea what an "OIC" is? It's Officer in Charge. A police officer sent to interview a psychic, even if he is senior to the other officer there, is nat an OIC. Even if he is, then he's "OIC of an interview." The secretary is "OIC of the files."

I'll grant my law enforcement experience is limited to interactions (significant interactions) with US law enforcement agencies and none in the UK, so perhaps Stumpy will correct me, but I'll wager long odds you're misusing the term OIC.

The issue here is the fact that Ms H provided corrobarative evidence which eventually nailed straight onto the perpetrator.

No. The issue is that she claimed--through Batters--to do so. The truth is that she did nothing of the sort. The critical evidence was collected prior to and separate from her interview. The suspect--eventually convicted--had been arrested prior to her coming forward.

Ms H is, was and still is a medium / psychic.

No. She was and is still someone who claims to be a medium/psychic and who has nothing of substance to back up her claim.

There has been no refutation of this evidence short of accusations of criminal involvement, with no evidence, let alone proof.

Do you seriously believe this? If so, it does not speak well of your critical thinking abilities nor your reading comprehension.

I invite you to address the substantive posts I have listed for Steve.

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

If you were a skeptic, I would take this statement seriously.

 

[RonSceptic]

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

Really? And when did you become a sceptic?

 

[juninho]

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.

So what if Batters was the OIC who investigated Ms H.

I'll give you a possible explanation:

The Investigating Office heading up the murder case of Jacqui Poole/Hunt recieves hundreds of leads. One of these "leads" comes from a crackpot ringing up to say that she is hearing voices telling her details of the murder case.

If you were the Investigating Officer who would you send to check out this crackpot;

1) You're best detectives or;
2) Some beat bobby.

Tricky one.

BTW, Lucianarchy, you have claimed to have plenty of experience in legal matters, ie worked in plenty of police stations up and down the country and with the home office yet you still refuse to answer;

1) In what capacity did you work within the home office and

2) In which building did you work.

Is your reticence in answering the questions a simple matter of secrecy. I can honestly believe that contract cleaners are forbidden to divulge such delicate issues as how many pineapple chunks they place in the urinals at Queen Anne's Gate?

Oh, damn, I have a prediction that if you now answer the questions you worked at QAG, right?

 

[CFLarsen]

Is your reticence in answering the questions a simple matter of secrecy. I can honestly believe that contract cleaners are forbidden to divulge such delicate issues as how many pineapple chunks they place in the urinals at Queen Anne's Gate?

Not to divert the discussion or anything, but....how do you know they taste of pineapple?

(Ever read "American Psycho"? Well...don't ever eat mint ice cream again...)

 

[Ed]

BTW, Lucianarchy, you have claimed to have plenty of experience in legal matters, ie worked in plenty of police stations up and down the country and with the home office yet you still refuse to answer;

1) In what capacity did you work within the home office and

2) In which building did you work.

Is your reticence in answering the questions a simple matter of secrecy. I can honestly believe that contract cleaners are forbidden to divulge such delicate issues as how many pineapple chunks they place in the urinals at Queen Anne's Gate?

Oh, damn, I have a prediction that if you now answer the questions you worked at QAG, right?

Poor boy, you must be new. Lucidoes not answer, it simply asserts. It never engages. It does research. It works for the cops. Yup.

Claus...the questions.

 

[Stumpy]

Batters was the OIC who investigated Ms H. Why are you ignoring this fact

There still seems to be some confusion over the role and title of Batters, it is worrysome that there seems to be a concerted effort to buff up his role.
OIC = Officer in Case or Officer In Charge, within UK LawEnforcement. This is applied to a single officer working a particular enquiry e.g series of linked burglaries, a robbery etc. On a major enquiry the lead officer is referred to as SIO, Senior Investigatin Officer. I have worked many major enquiries the term "OIC" has never been applied to specific components of an investigation. Generally, because officers are paired up so that any evidence can be corroborated the components of an enquiry team are referred to as "crews" e.g interview crew, house-to-house crew etc. Understand that Batters was not trained to interview witnesses to the level of a detective. The detective constable with Batters would therefore have had primacy in any interview with a witness. The fact that Batters may have done all the talking does not elevate his status above the detectives.

In any event M.Keen did not use the term OIC, on the original thread he posted the following via Steve Grenard at 10.59am 7-3-03

Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark.

Batters was not either principal or detective, he did not recover any pullover. I challenged the assertion that Batters was the principal detective.

At 4.15pm on 07-03-03 I sought to clear this up, I posted

I am dubious of your assertion that the researchers to whom you refer "carefully studied" the case. Are they maintaining that Tony Batters was the principal detective in the case?

One of the researchers in the case (M.KEEN) replied via Grenard at 02.20 am on 07-04-02

Tony Batters was the principal detective involved. He was part of Lundy's team. Batters forced entry into the flat and found the body, spent five hours there, making elaborate notes, and was a principal witness at the eventual trial. I used the expression "principal detective involved" in the sense in which would commonly be understood

Again the basic error is re-iterated along with another basic error - Batters was not a pricipal witness at trial, he was not even a witness.

Once again this issue comes down to who is "mistaken", Keen or Batters? Once we can clear this up we can move towards the more interesting topic of "did Holohan give the info alleged and if so, how?"

Stumpy

 

[CFLarsen]

EddieSpaghetti,

Glad to: "Questions for Lucianarchy"

Stumpy,

You have got to write this up for an article on SkepticReport! I insist! I will summon the skeptical hordes and petition outside your house, until you oblige!

........right, gang?

 

[Ed]

EddieSpaghetti,

Glad to: "Questions for Lucianarchy"

Stumpy,

You have got to write this up for an article on SkepticReport! I insist! I will summon the skeptical hordes and petition outside your house, until you oblige!

........right, gang?

Thank you. Once again, Claus, you show the deep sensitivity of your Viking ancestors by bringing up an oh so happy soubriquet bestsowed upon me in primary school

Anyhoo, from a credibility/reporting standpoint, is it not relevant that the actual title and function of Batters (Copper at a beating death; Batters ...Hmmmmm) cannot be resolved? If Keen is wrong it shows that he had no idea who he was talking to.

 

[juninho]

Not to divert the discussion or anything, but....how do you know they taste of pineapple?

(Ever read "American Psycho"? Well...don't ever eat mint ice cream again...)

I defered tasting to "troughman" of Sydney's Mardi Gras fame. Read Here - not pleasant

And, NO, I wasn't there.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I invite you to address the substantive posts I have listed for Steve.

Your "posts", are nothing other than supposition, wishfull thinking or your own opinion. You provide nothing which supports your suppositions. Forgive me, but this is a forum for critical thinkers not wishfull thinkers. All you can do is claim that Ms H is dishonest or criminally involved, like JREF's resident Ms Cleo did. She is neither, and there is no evidence to even suggest that she is.

Perhaps we should ask Officer Stumpy top clear this up:

Stumpy, do you believe that Ms H has been dishonest or is criminally involved in the case being discussed? Yes or No. If yes, please provide your evidence to your colleagues as a matter of urgency.

If no, then please cease and desist with the collusion of any action which may misalign Ms H's positive and public spirited intention of coming forward to help in a poilice enquirey.

This woman should be thanked. It is quite disgusting to see the unfounded accusations and attempts to denigrate her in this forum. There is no evidence for such accusations. All it does is reinforce the corrupt nature of pseudo-skepticism and the zeal of the 'True Unbeliever'.

Let's hope other psychics and mediums are not put off by the tactics displayed here and continue to come forward to help the police.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Read my posts better before jumping into idiotic remarks.

I agree that your posts are "idiotic", but I have read them quite well. Your claim that "So he either lied or he had no idea about the investigation " has no evidence behind it what so ever.

It is also irrelevant whether Batters or Ms H were used in Court. No one is claiming that they were, or even should be, so I suggest you are the one who would do better to read the subject matter before writing any more of your silly "idiotic" remarks.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let's hope other psychics and mediums are not put off by the tactics displayed here and continue to come forward to help the police.

We're still waiting for an example of where they have..

But I'm sure you know this...

 

[Cleopatra]

All you can do is claim that Ms H is dishonest or criminally involved, like JREF's resident Ms Cleo did.

Hmmmm.... you lie again. Quelle surprize!!

One more time: During the trial for the Murder of Jacqueline Pool, the court asked for the testimony of the officer who lead the original investigation.

The officer who leaded the investigation testified indeed :

Tony Lunby, who led the original inquiry, flew from his retirement home in Spain for the trial. After seeing the only murder case he failed to solve concluded at last, he said he was pleased for Mrs Poole's family.

With the compliments of Steve Grenard

 

[Cleopatra]

Stumpy,

You have got to write this up for an article on SkepticReport! I insist! I will summon the skeptical hordes and petition outside your house, until you oblige!

I second that and I insist that the "The Police" magazine must be informed about the woo-woo articles that publishes.

 

[juninho]

Your "posts", are nothing other than supposition, wishfull thinking or your own opinion. You provide nothing which supports your suppositions. Forgive me, but this is a forum for critical thinkers not wishfull thinkers.

How psironic

OK, please allow me to make a critique of your time in the Home Office - I am still waiting for the answers. PM me if you like.

Silence speaks a thousand words or should that be - I think the data speaks for itself.

Go back to cleaning toilets. I know it's a supposition but you won't furnish me with any information.

 

[Stumpy]

Stumpy, do you believe that Ms H has been dishonest or is criminally involved in the case being discussed? Yes or No.

Lucianarchy, you continually avoid any direct questions put to you, or comment on any reasonable points made. You continually fail to engage in any reasoned exchange of views. Avoidance, obfuscation, evasion seem to be your stock in trade. Do not DEMAND any answers from me until you have demonstrated that you are able to maturely enter into a reasonable discussion. It should be noted that I have answered point by point anything raised by you or Steve Grenard in this and the previous thread. In return all I get is evasion and ad hominen attacks. Taking a puffed up, haughty attitude isn't the best way to ellicit a response is it? For all your alleged time in the Home Office you learnt nothing about communication skills did you? Mr Keen has apparently made inaccurate statements on this board in pursuit of "proving" his assertion. Perhaps it would be more productive if you could apply some of your scepticism and critical thinking to this connundrum.

When you have answered the numerous questions put to you, as yet unanswered, I will provide a full answer to you in relation to your question above. The article on Tony Youens web-site is comprehensive and self-explanatory, we have made no allegation or even obliquely suggested that either Holohan or Batters has acted dishonestly or criminally. The implication that we have done either is beneath contempt.

Stumpy

 

[Lucianarchy]

we have made no allegation or even obliquely suggested that either Holohan or Batters has acted dishonestly or criminally.

Stumpy

Good. Perhaps some of the other pseudo-skeptics will fall in line.

Now, the following supposition, which is the only rational explanatory candidate put forward, is without any merit or evidence to support it being so:

"Suppose someone strongly suspected or perhaps even knew that Ruark was the murderer and wanted to get this information to the police without being traced back (possibly worried about retribution?). They could have passed this information on to a local medium who could then obligingly tell the police. "

I believe that misaligns Ms H as being dishonest. She is a woman of honesty and integrity and there is no rational reason for her to behave in the way supposed.

I have read your posts, Stumpy, the points you have raised are onlysuppositions. As I have said, this is a forum for critical thinking, not wishfull.

There has yet to be a mundan, rational, evidenced candidate to explain how Ms Holohan provided the information to the police. All I see is hair-splitting over 'titles', straw men (court evidence, testimony) or unsupported supposition (see above by Youens).

 

[lofgoernost]

Posted by Lucianarchy
It is also irrelevant whether Batters or Ms H were used in Court. No one is claiming that they were, or even should be, so I suggest you are the one who would do better to read the subject matter before writing any more of your silly "idiotic" remarks.

You must've missed this post by Stumpy:


One of the researchers in the case (M.KEEN) replied via Grenard at 02.20 am on 07-04-02

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Batters was the principal detective involved. He was part of Lundy's team. Batters forced entry into the flat and found the body, spent five hours there, making elaborate notes, and was a principal witness at the eventual trial. I used the expression "principal detective involved" in the sense in which would commonly be understood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again the basic error is re-iterated along with another basic error - Batters was not a pricipal witness at trial, he was not even a witness.

*************

Stumpy has been trying to get at the root of these inaccuracies in Keen's reporting. I see it as a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Stumpy]

Lucianarchy wrote:

All I see is hair-splitting over 'titles', straw men (court evidence, testimony) or unsupported supposition (see above by Youens).

That's because that's all you WANT to see. If you are unable to see that there is some deceit (intentional or otherwise) by either Keen or Batters then I really can't help you anymore. That is giving a straight answer to a straight question. Now please try applying that technique to the numerous questions asked of you.

Irregardless of your crude analysis regarding this case there is perhaps a more transparent way of resolving this. The Batters/Keen/Lucianarchy case seems to be: Eileen Holohan is a genuine psychic, she succesfully domonstrated this ability during an interview with Tony Batters 20 years ago.
According to Lucianarchy's link, Holohan has continued her career as a "succesful medium".
Now, according to Steve Grenard she has previously assisted the RAF with a project involving her psychic abilities.
Clearly she is not adverse to having her abilities tested in a controlled environment. Therefore she should have no objection to taking the Randi challenge.

Stumpy

 

[Stumpy]

Lucianarchy wrote:

I have read your posts, Stumpy, the points you have raised are onlysuppositions

Then you haven't read the posts then!

In an earlier post I raised the following points which are NOT supposition, they are accurate and worthy of addressing:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case was indpendently investigated by Keen and Playfair and they talked to everyone involved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The official record appears in the public files and court records or so I am advised and these have been reviewed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The psychic's account appeared in a police officer's dated notes, are part of the evidence in the case at the time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No record of the alleged interview with Holohan was submitted to the enquiry by any Police Officer.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and (Batters) was a principal witness at the eventual trial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the very preliminary stage of the inquiry when Batters and Smith were interviewing Holohan, Ruark was not a prime suspect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



See Tony Youens article. Ruark was the Prime suspect before Holohan was allegedly interviewed - this was widely known in the area.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conviction was based on DNA found on stowed evidence, a sweater and other samples from he deceased
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.

Stumpy