Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[Lucianarchy]

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.

There is no deciept by Keen, Batters or Ms H. Only supposition of such, yet there is not even any evidence to make that suppositiion. Indeed you have said that:

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

Now you are telling me there is a deceit to "see". Show me. Foirget the supposition. Where is there deceipt?

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

It is not a scientific test. It is a challenge, biased by the challenger having $1m to lose.

 

[FutileJester]

There is no deciept by Keen, Batters or Ms H. Only supposition of such, yet there is not even any evidence to make that suppositiion.

And this right after a post detailing blatantly incorrect information from those very sources. You have not challenged Stumpy's refutation of these statements, so we can only assume you agree that these statements were inaccruate. If these statments are inaccurate, then someone is either lying or just plain wrong.

This does not necessarily mean intentional deception, as Stumpy also made clear. It certainly doesn't rule it out, either. But whether they had good intent or not, they were wrong about many things.

 

[Ed]

All you will get from this character is dancing and no direct statements in response to your questions and observations.

 

[SteveGrenard]

On the issue of Batters giving evidence in a formal or trial proceeding in this case, Keen says he will double check this statement w/sources and let me know.

There are basically three things Stumpy and Youens say is wrong with Keen and Playfair's investigation of the case:

1. Whether or not Batters was a principal in the investigation. He was principally in volved, was first on the scene and most importantly he interviewed Holohan with the unnamed colleague.
This makes him "principal" in that respect. If Stumpy and Youens wish to widen that to everything about the case that is their perogrative.

2. Whether or not Batters gave evidence at Ruark's trial or pre-trial proceedings. We have to get that distinction correct. He is double checking his facts on this but it is irrelevant to the issue of the medium's statements and whether they were accurate or true or not and whether they could, all 120 or 130 of them, be obtained in some normal or non-paranormal manner. This is an area that is skirted around by Stumpy and Youens. It is understandable since we do not know what each and everyone of those points were or are.

3. A single mistake by the medium citing that the day of the murder was the eve of the murder, a different day by a matter of hours. We do not know the reason for this but the medium asserts this what the dead woman said to her. I dont suppose time, days of the week or anything like that means a whole lot to a dead person anymore. But we can't hang an entire refutation on this either. Fifty or sixty wrong items out of 130 would be better. Nor can we hang an entire refutation on what the communicator did not tell her -- the whereabouts of the stolen jewelry. However there is more coming on that in any case, its just not verified as yet. so wont say more on this.

 

[Lucianarchy]

And this right after a post detailing blatantly incorrect information from those very sources. You have not challenged Stumpy's refutation of these statements, so we can only assume you agree that these statements were inaccruate. If these statments are inaccurate, then someone is either lying or just plain wrong.

This does not necessarily mean intentional deception, as Stumpy also made clear. It certainly doesn't rule it out, either. But whether they had good intent or not, they were wrong about many things.

You are talking about split-hairs about who was in Court, for what reason or titles. Even Randi has a history of some very poor reportage, so don't try apply selective skepticism here, it doesn't wash. I'm not interested in the minutae in reportage, I'm interested in the information which Ms H gave the police, in positivity, public spirit and integrity. It has not been refuted past completely unfounded supposition, which is not critical thinking in any shape or form. But it is the sort of wishfull thinking some of the True Unbelievers here have desperately tried to hang on to.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Why don't you ask Keen to join this forum? Or Schwartz? Or any of those you claim connection with?

It would be so much easier to work things out, without having to go through you.

After all, you are not the most reliable person to deal with...if you pardon my candor...

 

[Stumpy]

Thanks Steve, your efforts in trying to progress this is much appreciated.

There are basically three things Stumpy and Youens say is wrong with Keen and Playfair's investigation of the case:

There are actually more than 3 things that we take issue with in Keen & Playfairs reportage, or certainly statements asserted by Mr Keen in the original thread.

1) The assertion that Batters was a detective is incorrect.
2) The assertion that Batters was PRINCIPAL detective is incorrect.
2) The assertion that Batters was "a principal witness at the eventual trial" is incorrect.
3) The assertion that Batters recovered a sweater from Ruarks dust-bin is incorrect.
4) The assertion that Batters notes were "part of the evidence in the case at the time" is incorrect (DCI McKinlay reviewed the entire case and found no such notes)
5) The assertion that "The conviction was based on DNA found on stowed evidence, a sweater and other samples from he deceased" is incorrect. (DCI McKinlay states that he has no knowledge of any DNA from the sweater and no such evidence was presented in evidence.)
6) The assertion that "At the very preliminary stage of the inquiry when Batters and Smith were interviewing Holohan, Ruark was not a prime suspect" is incorrect. Both Lundy and McKinlay refute this.

Furthermore Keen makes reference to Batters "dated notes", can Keen confirm WHEN the notes were dated? i.e when were the notes made, during the interview with Holohan or sometime later? Has Keen seen the "original" handwritten notes or the typed notes dated Sept 2001?
Also you stated that Keen has informed you that "the official record appears in the public files and court records had been reviewed". Can you eloborate what these "public files" are? The Police or CPS do not make any "public files " available in respect of murder enquiries , save in exceptional circumstances. Can Keen elaborate what court records have been reviewed?

Thanks

Stumpy

 

[FutileJester]

You are talking about split-hairs about who was in Court, for what reason or titles.

First of all the point I was responding too was not the relative weight of the inaccuracies. I was responding to the your statement that there was no deceit, when obviously there was. (Note that this was in reply to Stumpy who clearly defined deceit to cover intentional and unintentional falsehood, just to clarify.)

Secondly, I think these assertions carry more weight than you're giving them credit for. Consider two descriptions:

• The lead detective in the case interviewed Holohan. The notes were entered into evidence and the officer gave evidence at the trial. After the interview Ruark became the prime suspect.
• The beat officer who was first on the scene interviewed Holohan. The notes were not entered into evidence and the officer did not testify at trial. Before the interview, Ruark was already the prime suspect.

This is a huge difference.

Even Randi has a history of some very poor reportage, so don't try apply selective skepticism here, it doesn't wash.

Nice strawman. I don't take Randi at his word either. I routinely check other information sources to confirm or deny things I pick up here.

I'm not interested in the minutae in reportage, I'm interested in the information which Ms H gave the police, in positivity, public spirit and integrity. It has not been refuted past completely unfounded supposition, which is not critical thinking in any shape or form. But it is the sort of wishfull thinking some of the True Unbelievers here have desperately tried to hang on to.

When most of the statements that actually can be verified are shown to be inaccurate to various degrees, it's certainly prudent to question the statements that can't be verified.

People do not always remember things as they really happened. People also unintentionally exaggerate. And, of course, people lie. These obvious observations provide us with many reasons to question what we've read, especially after seeing the many errors, all of which happened to shift the evidence in favor of a paranormal explanation. So there were 130 "amazingly accurate" statements, none of which told the police anything new, or changed the course of the investigation, or were even entered into evidence or brought up in court; why should we assume communication with the dead is necessary to achieve this non-result?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

There are basically three things Stumpy and Youens say is wrong with Keen and Playfair's investigation of the case:

We'll leave aside the math/counting questions for a moment, but . . . three appears a bit low.

1. Whether or not Batters was a principal in the investigation.

I just wanted to stop here because this is a good example of 'claim drift.'

Initial Claim (By Keen Via SG):

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.

Restatement/Explanation of Claim (By Keen):

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.

Between the two, these facts are claimed:

(1) Principal Police Detective involved in case ("in the sense that would commonly be understood").

(2) Retrieved pullover (elsewhere said to contain valuable DNA).

(3) Was a "Principal witness" at the trial.

Lets deal with just (1) and (3) for the moment:

(1) Principal Police Detective.

This statement begins as "Principal Police Detective" (who was a "principal witness" -- a very principled fellow).

By the end of this page, you have reworded this to being a "principal in the investigation." While even that claim mioght be questionable, you have come in and completely reworded the original statements by Keen to soften the claim and make it less specific -- without actually acknowledging that the original statement is simply, clearly wrong.

(3) Principal Witness at Trial.

This has also drifted far from the original statement.

If you follow your messages on this page alone, you start by asking why it is important that he was not a witness at the trial, followed by a statement that maybe they could clarify whether he gave evidence in some "pre-trial proceedings."

You follow up with yet another claim that whether he testified at trial is unimportant to the claims about the alleged psychic. But you've changed the statement in asking that question -- he wasn't just "a" witness at some preliminary hearing (according to the claims) -- he was "the principal witness at trial." If such a basic mistake is being made by the person responsible for reporting this case (and not just made once, but repeated in an effort to explain the "principal detective" mistake above), then major questions are being raised about the process - and then apparently ignored.

You ask how this is relevant, but how can the credibility and accuracy of the person doing the reporting on this psychic not be relevant to an examination of the claims about her?! The information comes from Keen, who -- in attempting to bolster the importance of the police officer -- also manages to make staggering mistakes in doing so. If these facts are so unimportant, one must wonder why they were brought up in the first place.

It would be important that he was the principal witness at the trial because that would help; when this is found to be incorrect, then it is irrelevant. But it wasn't the skeptical reviewers that brought this up in the first place - it was Keen.

So, no, the point was not "[w]hether or not Batters was a principal in the investigation." The point was that the initial claims that Batters was a "principal police detective" and the "principal witness at trial" are wildly innacurate. and the source of this information is the same one that we must trust for most of the other facts on this account.

NA

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I see that the newest member of the forum is "tonyyouens". Perhaps he can address some of the questions.

 

[Ed]

Why are so many Brits named Tony? What ever happened to "Clive" and "Mortimer" and "Niegel" and "Reggie"? What is it with these wop names? Am I the only one who has noticed this? Something is going on and I was not informed.

In any event, he is quite welcome.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
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.

No. My posts are questions and statements based on the articles available to someone who is not in the UK. They demonstrate incorrect conclusions drawn by people like you and internal inconsistencies in Holohan's/Batters' stories.

I'll play the game a bit longer, though, and make it easy. Let it be known that I do not expect you to answer this question. I suspect, as Ed states, that you will either ignore this question, deride it, or obfuscate. I will apologize if you demonstrate otherwise.

Ahem...

Can you name one piece of information provided by Holohan to the police that was not known before she spoke to them?

What is it?

I'll wait a bit...

 

[Cleopatra]

On the issue of Batters giving evidence in a formal or trial proceeding in this case, Keen says he will double check this statement w/sources and let me know.

Hi Steve.

Don't you think that he should have already done that? According to him and to Batters the info provided by Christina was verified by the DNA test and of course since this is a new method the court must have been very careful in examining apart from the test the evidence provided by the Police Investigation. So, I am certain that the case was scrutinized in court.

I find strange that he wasn't aware of whether Batters testified or not but let's give him the benefit of the doubt...

 

[Garrette]

Steve,

I am legitimately interested in your response to an earlier post of mine. Care to give it a crack?

[Q]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?[/Q]

 

[CFLarsen]

Garrette,

These questions can - and will - be added to the list of questions Steve doesn't want to answer...

 

[Garrette]

Much obliged, pardner.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I have discussed some of your comments once again with Keen and he has once again been kind enough to respond to me. The next few days may be required to obtain additional confirmations to some of these renarks but in the meantime.....


Re the assertion that all the information given by Holohan
was already known to the police: "This is simply untrue, and we will demonstrate as much in our paper - although even if it were true it would not begin to explain how Holohan knew so much so accurately and in such detail without the use of telepathy."


"As for so-called misses, there was really only one, and that so minor as to be barely worth noting, save to remark that one could hardly expect a newly raped and murdered woman who finds herself dead to be totally coherent, orderly and accurate in her transmissions to a medium. The scribbled reference to
"Ickeham", misspelled in the way that the dyslexic victim might have written it, incidentally, "Gardens" and a number were misinterpreted by the police at the time. Only later, many years later, when Batters was puzzling over their meaning after the trial, did it strike him that these might be a clue to where the
stolen jewellery had been hidden. My colleague and I discuss this (among other matters) in our peer-reviewed article."

"Nor was there any contradiction in Holohan's account of the appearance of the apparition and the subsequent imparting of details."

"As to the extent to which Holohan's information was helpful in bringing Ruark to justice: without her information the police would not have retrieved a discarded pullover from Ruark's apartment, interviewed and taken statements from
everyone with whom Ruark came in contact after the evening of the murder, and checked and verified all his movements during the previous fortnight: three elements which proved important in combating the victim's defence at his trial."

"As to why Batters (it really isn't necessary to stoop to the level of calling him Batty*) didn't print his article soon after the murder, it beggers belief that anyone could pose so naive and silly a question."

"I'm awaiting a comment from Tony Batters to statements by Adrian Shaw so I'd prefer to reserve comment until then."

"As for Batters' trial testimony, my understanding is that he did testify, since he was the officer who discovered the body and took notes of all that surrounded it. But please await confirmation."




____________________________________________

SG personally hastens to add (*) that if it was not the intent of the skeptics here to discredit and marginalize Batters, then they would not use such ad hominems. This type of remark is beneath contempt.

 

[RonSceptic]

This case was solved by normal police work. End. The involvement of a so called psychic had zero impact on the eventual outcome.

The most illuminating aspect of this case is the very shoddy nature of the research by Keen and his associates. Basic factual errors. There is no hiding from it.

The attempt by some posters here to dismiss there errors as unimportant is ludicrous. It shows a complete lack of objectivity.

 

[SteveGrenard]

ED: "Why are so many Brits named Tony? What ever happened to "Clive" and "Mortimer" and "Niegel" and "Reggie"? What is it with these wop names? Am I the only one who has noticed this? Something is going on and I was not informed."



Ed - No you are not. I brought it up above.


The following Tony's are involved in this case so far as we know:

Tony Youens - a skeptic
Tony Lundy - a cop
Tony Batters - a cop
Anthony " Pokie " Ruark - even the killer could be a Tony

and by extension...........

Tony Chalhoub who plays the role of a detective named
Adrian on American TV (this is called stretching....) who has
OCD which helps him solve cases.

 

[Garrette]

All quotations from SteveGrenard, apparently from Keen.

Steve, am I correct in assuming that you are abdicating any position or opinion of your own in favor of Keen's? That is how it appears after reading this post.

Re the assertion that all the information given by Holohan was already known to the police: "This is simply untrue, and we will demonstrate as much in our paper - although even if it were true it would not begin to explain how Holohan knew so much so accurately and in such detail without the use of telepathy."

So there is nothing yet published indicating anything Holohan revealed was unknown to the police. That includes the items mentioned in Batters' article.

Got it.

And the final statement beginning "although even if it were true..." is a complete abandonment of the psychic-helps-police claim, you realize.

Does Holohan claim telepathic ability now, too?

"As for so-called misses, there was really only one, and that so minor as to SNIP

Bull crap. Ickeham was a miss. Garden was a miss. Saturday was a miss. The fight starting in the bathroom was a miss.

All else in this portion does not address anything. The victim was dyslexic? This explains the misspelling of Ickeham? I didn't know it was misspelled, but so what? Is it not just as likely that Holohan simply misspelled it on her own?

So Batters guesses, 2 years after the fact, that the missing jewelry might be in a garden in Ickeham (SP?). Never supports the idea nor proves it, just guesses it. Amazing evidence that...

This is grasping at concrete straws.

one could hardly expect a newly raped and murdered woman who finds herself dead to be totally coherent, orderly
and accurate in her transmissions to a medium.

Well, if one believes other mediums one can most certainly expect it. Name me one medium who portrays the dead as anything but happy and undisturbed. JE never does. Brian Hurst never does. George Andersen? I don't think so, but I'm less sure.

This would certainly be a first in the world of mediumship:

SPIRIT ACTUALLY UPSET ABOUT BEING RAPED AND STRANGLED!! NAMES MURDERER!! OTHER SPIRITS SUE FOR BREACH OF SPIRIT STANDARDS!!

That bit about naming the murderer, btw, is something that has been repeatedly put forth as something spirits are not interested in. Wonder why it works for Holohan...

"Nor was there any contradiction in Holohan's account of the appearance of the apparition and the subsequent imparting of details."

More bull puckey.

Claim: Holohan said she read newspaper accounts before being visited by the victim's spirit; she also says she received the first visit on Sunday.

Fact: The body was discovered on Sunday; newspaper articles did not appear until Monday.

Claim: Holohan said that in a series of visits from the victim's spirit (or apparition), she (Holohan) was informed of all the details of the murder and the location it happened. Batters said Holohan went into "self-induced trances" during his interview(s) of her, during which she imparted information, sometimes speaking as Holohan, sometimes as the victim.

Fact: If Holohan had received all the information from the apparitional visits prior to speaking to Batters, then there was no need to go into a trance during the interview. In addition, these are now two separate claims of Holohan's: (1) She is [in my words] a Sensitive who sees and hears ghosts (2) She is a trance medium

without her information the police would not have retrieved a discarded pullover from Ruark's apartment, interviewed and taken statements from everyone with whom Ruark came in contact after the evening of the murder, and
checked and verified all his movements during the previous fortnight: three elements which proved important in combating the victim's defence at his trial."

I take it this is an honest mistake and the word "victim's" in the last sentence is supposed to be "suspect's".

Regarding the pullover, I'll leave it to Stumpy to argue, but I'll buy you a drink if it turns out that any pullover used in evidence was not already in police custody before Holohan was interviewed.

Regarding the interviews and statements, I make the same offer.

Regarding Ruark's movements, I'll say without fear of contradiction: "Complete and utter codswallop."

Ruark was the prime suspect before Holohan was known to exist. Damn skippy the police tracked his movements without needing Holohan's prodding to do so.

I'll up my offer: demonstrate any--I repeat any--information regarding Ruark's movements that were unknown to the police until after Holohan's interview and I'll pay for the book of your choice to be added to the JREF library, if they'll have it. Up to the cost of Gauld's Mediumship and Survival, which has a hefty price tag. If you'd rather it go somewhere else, suggest it and I'll be amenable to negotiation.

In fairness to myself, I should add the legalistic caveat that says "any information regarding Ruark's movements that would have remained unknown without Holohan's assistance" but then we'll get into too subjective an area. It's entirely possible the police found something, outside Holohan's help, after the interview, but I'll take the risk anyway and leave the offer as worded in the previous paragraph.

With your permission, I'll use Stumpy as judge, though you may suggest another.

"As to why Batters (it really isn't necessary to stoop to the level of calling him Batty*) didn't print his article soon after the murder, it beggers belief that anyone could pose so naive and silly a question."

I rather find it beggers belief that anyone could NOT pose so obvious and important a question. Batters and Holohan were certain before the conviction, weren't they?

{Edited for format problem}