Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

I would appreciate Keen's feedback on the points raised in my previous post, if that's possible.

Tony Youens has just spoken to Lundy again in respect of the points Keen has raised:

He conceeds that is POSSIBLE that Batters gave evidence in court in respect of what he saw at the scene. However if this is the case certainly he could not be described as a "principal witness". It also raises the question that IF Batters did give evidence, why wasn't the crucial evidence that he obtained from Holohan discussed?

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:

I note that the previous assertion that Batters retrieved the discarded pullover has now been modified to "police retrieved the discarded pullover".

This has been raised with Lundy. He is emphatic, the investitgation into Ruark and his subsequent arrest was due ENTIRELY to traditional policing methods. Absolutely NO decisions concerning the investigation of Ruark were even remotely influenced by any information provided by Holohan. There was no record of interview/statement/or any other notes taken during any conversation with Holohan submitted to the enquiry in respect of the alleged information provided by Holohan. The decision making process during the original enquiry rested with Lundy alone, he is umabiguous:Holohans's information played absolutely no part in the investigation, arrest or conviction of Ruark.

Also Ruark was first interviewed by detectives on the day that Poole's body was discovered. The detectives who interviewed Ruark were convinced that Ruark was the offender immediately after that interview. The label "prime suspect" is therefore appropriate for the status of Ruark, indeed, during the initial enquiry Lundy noted in his official records that "Ruark is the person most likely to have committed this offence". This assertion was in no way influenced by Holohan's "information". It was this assertion that that lead McKinlay to check Ruark's DNA against a sample taken from the body of the deceased when the technology was mature enough to be effective. It was the unsatisfactory answers provided by Ruark in the initial interviews (several days before Holohan's alleged involvement that lead the Police to focus on Ruark and investigate his movements over the preceeding weeks.

regards

Stumpy

 

[juninho]

I realise quite a few people might have seen this site before but in light of the current thread I thought it might be of some interest.

Professionals Against Confidence Crime

Happy reading!

 

[FutileJester]

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.

Nail on the head, Ron. It's a matter of credibility, even if the points are small. And the points are far from small anyway. All together, they amount to the difference between a miracle and good police work.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy MISATTRIBUTES AND LIES: "Now, according to Steve Grenard she has previously assisted the RAF with a project involving her psychic abilities."


Er, Stumpy why are you lying about this? Does this mean you lie about other things? Clearly I never said anything like the above. I simply asked you if you came across anything like this in your inqueries. BTW I got my answer to this. She was working at RAF Northolt (I think its called) but it may have had nothing directly to do with these special abilities. Hence the issue is closed. Please do not turn a question I asked into a positive statement I did not make. Thank you.

See how easy it is to make a misattribution or get something wrong?

Keen will talk to Batters when he is well enough to clarify the testimony issue. As you know, if you were in contact with him you should know why. If you wish to discuss this with me in PM please feel free but I dont think this is the place to do so in respect to Tony Batters.

 

[CFLarsen]

Stumpy MISATTRIBUTES AND LIES: "Now, according to Steve Grenard she has previously assisted the RAF with a project involving her psychic abilities."


Er, Stumpy why are you lying about this? Does this mean you lie about other things? Clearly I never said anything like the above. I simply asked you if you came across anything like this in your inqueries. BTW I got my answer to this. She was working at RAF Northolt (I think its called) but it may have had nothing directly to do with these special abilities. Hence the issue is closed. Please do not turn a question I asked into a positive statement I did not make. Thank you.

That is a bald-faced lie, Steve. Here is what you said:

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.

You clearly claimed it had to do with her ability.

Steve, are you on drugs?

 

[Stumpy]

..err Hi Steve

Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability?

YOU stated that this was a FACT! You claimed that it was a fact that she was using her mediumistic abilities on an RAF project.
I then pointed that you claimed she had been working on an RAF project using her mediumistic abilities. You now claim that you didn't type those words above? You are seriously claiming that you didn't post that above and that I am lying??!?? Where have I lied, I genuinely confused here, you claim something as a fact and then refute that fact, then claim that I made the whole thing up! What are you playing at?

Tony Youens has pointed out an error in my previous post (thanks). Ruark was 1st interviewed the day after Poole's body was recovered, still several days before the alleged interview with Holohan.

Stumpy

 

[CFLarsen]

Stumpy,

You have to realize that this is an old strategy of Steve's. When he is cornered (nice work, btw), he resorts to personal attacks. I have debated with Steve on 3 other boards, and he does this again and again.

 

[Stumpy]

Steve

I am willing to acknowledge and correct any errors pointed out to me. I'm sorry but the allegation of my lying in respect of the claim that YOU clealy made on this open forum is simply too much. I trust as you have made the allegation in an open forum you will issue an apology in the same forum.

Stumpy

 

[Dragon]

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.

The full post by Steve which includes the "RAF" claim. Just in case.

Edited to add:- the post is timed at 09-10-2003 10:33 PM and has yet to be edited.

 

[Dragon]

Steve,

Can I draw your attention to your words in bold below?

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.

This suggests to me that you have more information on this point. If so, are you able to share it?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Jesus. On a Pogo Stick. Christ.



I will now shake the dust of this thread from my boots and walk away, shaking my head.

NA

 

[Ed]

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.

Ron,

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I think that "shoddy research" is a hallmark of paranormal investigations. I think that if "good" research were conducted, there would be nothing to talk about. After all, how do people like Keen and Schwartz get their money and/or jollies? Persuing this particular will 'o the wisp.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy. Evidently you are not aware of the significance of a question mark, or the statement what means "wondering if you..." etc etc. You answered the question in the negative and I appreciated that. You then turn that around and make it a statement of fact on my part. Please refrain from doing so in the future and also refrain from ignoring the significance of extremely simple English language symbols such as comma,s periods or q-marks. Thanks again.

I did indeed receive another private answer to this question involving Holohan's emplyment at RAF Northolt but there is nothing more to say about this with respect to her. Have you heard of Northolt? (This is QUESTION ...please be very careful about what you attribute to this..and keep in mind I am not in
England so don't know these places as well as you probably do)

 

[CFLarsen]

Stumpy. Evidently you are not aware of the significance of a question mark, or the statement what means "wondering if you..." etc etc. You answered the question in the negative and I appreciated that. You then turn that around and make it a statement of fact on my part. Please refrain from doing so in the future and also refrain from ignoring the significance of extremely simple English language symbols such as comma,s periods or q-marks. Thanks again.

I did indeed receive another private answer to this question involving Holohan's emplyment at RAF Northolt but there is nothing more to say about this with respect to her. Have you heard of Northolt? (This is QUESTION ...please be very careful about what you attribute to this..and keep in mind I am not in
England so don't know these places as well as you probably do)

Save for posterity.

Steve, there is no chance that your post could be interpreted as anything else but a claim. Why don't you just say that you were not very clear? This is downright silly of you....

Oh, well....your choice.

 

[Stumpy]

Steve

You are obviously blissfully unaware of the meaning of the word "fact" and basic sentence construction wherein a statement is contained within a question.

You were asking me if I was aware of the claim that you were making. I could hardly be aware of the claim if it was false, as you now point out is the case, could I? The fact that I was unaware of the claim does not then nullify the claim. I re-iterated the CLAIM that YOU made. You then state that the claim contained within your question was not made.

I was rather hoping for a mature, critical discussion on this whole issue. It is rather pathetic to make the claim regarding Holohan's involvement in an RAF project into mediumship then backpeddle furiously when I announce that I will check the claim with the RAF (which I have done!).

Once again, the question contained a statement of FACT, to whit "Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability". YOU made the claim, I pointed out that you had made the claim, you then denied making the claim!

Once again an apology is in order. My prefessional reputation relies heavily on my honesty and intergrity. You have wrongly called this into question, judge acknowledge your error and apologise so that we can move this debate on.

Thank-you

Stumpy

 

[lofgoernost]

Originally posted by Steve

Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability?

Then Steve posts

Stumpy MISATTRIBUTES AND LIES: "Now, according to Steve Grenard she has previously assisted the RAF with a project involving her psychic abilities."

Finally Steve posts

Stumpy. Evidently you are not aware of the significance of a question mark, or the statement what means "wondering if you..." etc etc. You answered the question in the negative and I appreciated that. You then turn that around and make it a statement of fact on my part.

In your question to Stumpy you state that it is a fact that Holohan was working on an RAF project involving her ability as a medium. Is this not so? You're attack on Stumpy is unwarranted and juvenile. Be a big boy and apologize, otherwise I'll be forced to view your posts as merely a form of ludicrous entertainment.

Btw, Steve - any chance you could learn how to use the Quote feature of this forum? Your whole Question:/Reply: technique used in various threads can get confusing.

Edited to add:

Originally posted by Steve

The other reason I did not respond immediately was an object lesson in the propagation of ad hominem remarks against myself personally, the allegations repeated by certain people who you can freely see for yourself above stating I am "a believer."

For someone so expectant of ad hominems it troubles me that you are so quick to attack Stumpy, who is attempting to conduct a rational discusssion with you about this interesting subject. Just mellow out and be rational about it.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Somebody told me Holohan was working at RAF Northolt, and then as a medium. I asked you quite civially if you were aware of this FACT? You said you were NOT. I thank you for your answer but I am dissapointed that any attempt by myself to obtain information or ask questions is met with the very stereotypical tactic of turning the question on its end and making it into a statement of FACT by the person who asks the question. If you cannot see the simple logic in this then I apologize for any confusion you may have endured by my attempt to ascertain information from you. I will refrain from doing so in the future.


I have one more question I will risk though: is it a fact that you and/or Youens personally interviewed or talked with Tony Batters about this case?



I stand by my use of the ubiquitous question mark and the terminology that followed the question.

This is an excellent example of the word games certain people here play and it indeed belongs in some hall of fame for this kind of a tactic.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your whole Question:/Reply: technique used in various threads can get confusing.

Intended.

 

[voidx]

Are you, BTW, aware of the fact that Holohan, at the time was a medium working on a nearby RAF project involving this ability?

Have to agree with everyone else here Steve. This sentence structure gives the impression that you are asking if he is aware of the fact, which is assumed you know, since you asking if he knows about it, that Holohan was a medium at the time. This sentence portrays the intent that you are trying to bring this "fact" to stumpy's attention. If you had said, "Have you heard that Holohan was a medium working for the RAF at the time, because I remember someone telling me that and was wondering if it was true", then your complaint would be valid.

 

[Jeff Corey]

If someone asks me if I am, "...aware of the fact that X was the case.", then I and most other reasonable people would conclude the speaker meant that (s)he thought that X was a fact.
Fact.