Jacqui Poole Murder Case

[Ed]

Sorry Steve. I read your question as a querry about Stumps knowledge of a fact.

OK, let's move on, ok? (Direction couched as suggestion awaiting affermation, just to be clear)

 

[SteveGrenard]

There was in fact a specific reason for my question which is not even directly relevant to the question. It relates to my follow-up questions in re Northolt, whether Stumpy interviewed Batters personally, whether he was aware of certain information regarding Batters (which I told him I would be willing to discuss in PM but received nothing). I noted also that Stumpy said he was unaware of this information which indeed I may've couched as a fact (a term I use as in the example above) because Holohan's employment at RAF Northolt was presented to me as a fact,
and then the curious question as to whether this came from Holohan which I did not respond to but which Stumpy would know the answer to if he had interviewed Batters in detail.

I would also like to ask Stumpy what details Batters may've provided regarding Holohan's living arrangements at the time, why she was living where she was and with whom and for how
long?

Batters, according to Keen, is unavailable right now for any conversation for reasons beyond his control so this will have to
wait. Stumpy should know this as well if he is or was in recent contact with his policeman colleague. I sorta got a blank stare and avoidance on this. But again this could be taken to PM if so desired.

 

[Stumpy]

Steve

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 really would like some answers to the questions previously asked. You seem to ignore them, then plough on regardless, asking some questions of your own. This is becoming a one-way street.

However, maintaining my policy of answering any reasonable questions put to me: Tony Youens has corresponded with Tony Batters via email. You are obviously aware of the situation which makes a personal meeting with Mr Batters difficult.

Your previous posts are an excellent example of inaccurate heresay being presented as fact in respect of paranormal claims and it indeed belongs in some hall of fame for this kind of a tactic.

Stumpy

 

[Stumpy]

Steve

Holohan's employment at RAF Northolt was presented to me as a fact,

Why then did you feel the need to "guild the lilly" by stating that she was employed on a project involving her mediumistic abilities.

I sorta got a blank stare and avoidance on this.

No, you invited me to PM you, if I wished. I didn't wish to.

Any chance of answers to the outstanding questions yet?

Stumpy

 

[SteveGrenard]

Thank you. So you never saw his notes, never had a face to face or a voice/a/voice conversation with him, did not interview him or get any details regarding Holohan, the pullover or anything else directly from Batters. You got information then from personal contact with Lundy and McKinlay then?

Now to answer your questions. Like yourself, and I have never claimed to investigate this personally, I am unable, not unwilling, to answer your questions. However, they have been passed on to Montague Keen (of that I can assure you), and since you indicate you are aware of the problem in speaking with Batters easily, we have to await further improvement in that situation.

I never said I had a personal "opinion" on this case. I never said I had any personal first-hand knowledge. My information comes from Keen, and thru Keen, from Batters and his unnamed co-interviewer (of Holohan) who interviewed Holohan and whose name we both know. I have the utmost faith in Keen's ability to take down notes and report what he has learned. So this comes down to the inability or perhaps even the unwillingness of Lundy and McKinlay to corroborate what one of their fellow officers did with respect to this case. I am trying to figure out where you are hinging your case against Batters and the veridicality of Holohan.

We have press reports that fail to mention that Batters or Officer X gave testimony in Ruark's trial so this is turned into a denial of them ever having given such testimony. This is in spite of the fact that Battrers indisputably was first on the scene, broke down Poole's flat door and spent five hours securing the crime scene and observing the activities related to a murder such as this.
It goes back to the attempt to minimize, trivialize and marginalize anyone who gives unpopular or unwelcome testimony. The assertion that Batters was not involved at trial with this case will be further elucidated.

The pullover issue is far from over either as Keen, based on your remonstrations, will dig deeper now into this as well. If he finds you are correct so be it, if not, we would expect that you should at least be able to reveal where you got the contrary evidence regarding the non-existence of this garment. Although it is presumably from Lundy. Right?

But again, please do not expect me to supply you with answers from my personal, first hand knowledge. You know everything I know and how I know it as of now.

Thank you for your response.

 

[Stumpy]

Steve

we would expect that you should at least be able to reveal where you got the contrary evidence regarding the non-existence of this garment

Tony Youens or I have never asserted that this garment doesn't exist. We fully accept that a discarded pullover belonging to Ruark was recovered. What we take issue with is the following:

The assertion that this garment was recovered by Tony Batters

AND

The assertion that it was Holohan's intervention that lead to the garment being recovered.

AND

The assertion that it yielded any DNA evidence that contributed towards the conviction.

So this comes down to the inability or perhaps even the unwillingness of Lundy and McKinlay to corroborate what one of their fellow officers did with respect to this case.

Have you considered the possibility that they can't/won't corroborate Batter's story because it does not accurately reflect what happened within the enquiry?

Stumpy

 

[Jeff Corey]

Grenard's Lexicongame

Fact: Something I read or heard somewhere, but I have no real data.

Liar: Someone who accurately quotes me when I say something is a fact, when, in fact, it isn't.

Survival "science". Grenard's defunct board which only allowed the posting of "facts" (see definition #1).

 

[Ed]

Grenard's Lexicongame

(see definition #1).

Jeff, I always think of this poem when you post. No connection except a homophonic last name. One of my favorites.


Richard Cory
By E.A. Robinson

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.
And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich --- yes, richer than a king ---
And admirable schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.


You may all return to the mundane now.

 

[Garrette]

Just wanting to add my unneeded agreement to those comments about Steve's methods.

Your question about Holohan at Northolt had the bit about her mediumship there embedded in it as fact. There is no escaping it. You have demonstrated enough intelligence to understand that. Which unfortunately then damns your attempts to backpedal.

Now you are trying to attack Stumpy on this. Shameful.

I, however, am still interested in the substance of the case. Care to take me up on my offer? It's no risk to you.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Okay now, what have we learned from a few pointed questions, even at the risk of being accused of a deception myself.

First we now have a concession that Batters "possibly” could have testified in court afterall. So we can dismiss all the cheering that that he was so unimportant to this case he was not even called to give evidence. But now, if so, why didn’t he give the Holohan evidence? Well there are several simple reasons for that:

1. He was confined to presenting the facts of the crime as he knew them and not witness statements or statements by alleged mediums.

Witnesses generally testify themselves and do not have their interrogators do it for them. I can see no difference in this where Holohan was concerned. There was no need 18 years later to bring her back into this case given the DNA technology available.


2. Witnesses are not allowed to go off on tangents and present hearsay, even policemen.

3. Batters could only confine himself to answering questions posted by the attorneys for both sides. If they did not ask him about Holohan then he could not introduce her material himself. That should be evident.

Is the lawyer still here? Care to comment about this?

4. The information given by Holohan 18 years later was not needed to convict Ruark since they had DNA evidence including DNA evidence from Ruark’s discarded pullover which
contained blood and fluid traces.

The technology to obtain DNA from such a source did not exist when this garment was first recovered.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stumpy wrote:

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?

Stumpy also wrote:

Tony Youens or I have never asserted that this garment doesn't exist. We fully accept that a discarded pullover belonging to Ruark was recovered. What we take issue with is the following:

The assertion that this garment was recovered by Tony Batters

AND

The assertion that it was Holohan's intervention that lead to the garment being recovered.

AND

The assertion that it yielded any DNA evidence that contributed towards the conviction.

Good, we have an admission that the discarded pullover does exist or, rather, than Youens and Stumpy do not assert it did NOT exist. This is contrary to what were lead to believe before.

So assuming this pullover exists we are left with needing to confirm or disprove 4 things about it:

1. Batters retrieved it or caused it to be retrieved from Ruark’s dustbin.

2. We concede Batters may not have pulled it out of the dustbin personally, but after having learned of its retrieval, attached importance to it, causing it to be preserved and that he did so based on what he had learned from Holohan.


3. Batters caused it to be preserved for 18 years as evidence even though Ruark was released as a suspect and not charged with the crime all this time. I am not familiar with the rules governing the holding of such evidence from persons released as suspects in murder cases in the UK so will not comment further.
If one is suspected, even charged and then exonerated or released of a charge in the U.S. personal evidence taken by the police is generally returned to the suspect unless it is somehow in some other way linked to the crime. Of course this pullover was retrieved from a trash can. If it was outside Ruark's flat it may've been free to take. ????


4.That the blood and fluid residue on this garment was or was not tested using the new DNA technology and did or did not turn out positive for Poole’s DNA typing, thus linking Ruark to the murder. Keen nor anyone else is doubting that other DNA samples were performed and even carried more weight than this one.

The pullover was brought up because Batters recalled it as important, that when it was retrieved, he felt it should be held as evidence, etc.

Stumpy asks: Have you considered the possibility that they can't/won't corroborate Batter's story because it does not accurately reflect what happened within the enquiry?

So we are hinging the entire refutation of Batter’s account of his and his police colleague (X) with Holohan based on a different interpretation of the events by his supervisors, and quite possibly even by their failure to consider or to otherwise
ignore the Holohan interview Batters and X brought in. Is that correct? So what happened? they shelved the case and waited 18 years for science to re open it for them. Fine.

Frankly I don't think there was a great deal of traditional police work, grilling of the suspect, looking for evidence that would've worked 18 years ago and so forth as Lundy claims. If there was they should've pinned this on Ruark a long time ago.

They used to convict people of murder before DNA didn't they?

And we also now have the concession that the investigation undertaken by Youens was conducted by e-mail with Batters and that he never personally spoke with Batters or examined the evidence as others have. We also know that any OPINION regarding Batters' and Police Officer X intrraction with Holohan was, in fact, based on the failure of Lundy or Lundy's superiors to mention it. What is the old saw about that one? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

 

[juninho]

First we now have a concession that Batters "possibly” could have testified in court afterall. So we can dismiss all the cheering that that he was so unimportant to this case he was not even called to give evidence. But now, if so, why didn’t he give the Holohan evidence? Well there are several simple reasons for that:

I can't be bothered at the moment to address all your points but just because Batters 'possibly' testified in court does not mean that you can dismiss anything. Until the situation is ratified we cannot be sure whether he testified in court or not, but that is all. How you can deduce from this that he is important to the case is beyond me. Perhaps, IF he did testify it was to explain the crime scene as he saw it when he discovered the body. Hardly fundamental to the prosecution is it? This seems to be a typical ploy of yours, ergo reading far too much into a situation than it merits.

I think it shows the character of Stumpy that he has gone back repeatedly over the facts and has admitted where he may, and I mean may, have got the wires crossed. I wonder if you would have done the same?

 

[Cleopatra]

Grenard's Lexicongame

Fact: Something I read or heard somewhere, but I have no real data.

Liar: Someone who accurately quotes me when I say something is a fact, when, in fact, it isn't.

Survival "science". Grenard's defunct board which only allowed the posting of "facts" (see definition #1).

Indeed.

In fact I am almost ready to post a public apology to Claus for the comments I have made regarding his "lists" and his debating methods with some people....

 

[Garrette]

Steve, I am sure Stumpy will address the points of your last post far better than I could, but I want to hit a couple of them myself anyway.

Batters would not "cause" any evidence to be retained. If evidence is collected, it is turned it, and it is retained. There is no such scenario as the evidence room guy going through open case files and very nearly throwing out a garment entered as evidence and then the policeman rushing up and saying "No! Keep that! In 18 years there may be a technological breakthrough that will validate our psychic, even though the suspect she named had already been arrested and was/is the prime suspect before she came forward!"

That's what you're suggesting, you know.

---

I don't know if Batters testified or not. But if he did and was not asked about Holohan's testimony by either attorney, do you not think that is significant?

Better yet, no one called Holohan herself to testify.

Maybe the legal system in the UK is such they were not allowed to talk about any evidence that originated from a psychic. Okay.

But they were still able to prove their case.

Understand this, Steve: Without any reference to Holohan in the courtroom, the police were able to establish a trail of evidence sufficient to convict Ruark. They were able to defend their actions during the investigation as consistent with good policework and the preservation of individual liberties insofar as they are protected in the UK (said because I don't know the equivalent laws regarding warrants and such in the UK).

---

Almost finally,

I recognize you're answering a lot of posts here all by yourself, but would you care to address the specific questions I had, either with or without my offer of the book purchase and drinks?

---

Finally, finally,

You just said yourself that it was a technological breakthrough that allowed the conviction. Not a psychical breakthrough. The evidence had been collected. Tecnology allowed prosecution.

Yes, murderers had been convicted before DNA testing. They had also gone free before DNA testing.

Let me ask the concurrent question: Were murderers convicted based on psychic evidence before DNA testing?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Is there some reason beyond the need to use personal attack to deviate from the facts in this case and the weakness of the investigator's (e.g. Youens and Stumpy) case to refute the information given by the medium 18 years earlier?

In the beginning we saw attempts to deny the crime took place, then that the medium did not exist, then that she did not give this evidence to a UK Police officer and what it contained. This was quickly put to rest as an absurd and futile attempt to silence
the matter.

We have seen attempts to discredit, trivialize and minimize Batters. We have seen people like Miss Cleo say he was so unimportant he didn't even testify and quote press reports to back that up. Then when it was conceded he probably did testify,
it was about his discovery of the crime scene, body etc. and not
the encounter with Holohan. This was responded to but
ignored. Batters could not testify aboutHolohan unless he was asked to. If his superiors at the time decided to ignore that evidence it was quashed then and there by these people (e.g. Lundy et al).

We then saw total denial of the pullover evidence. Then we got backsliding on this with more questions attached which the
purevyors of the anti-pullover argument cannot answer. Neither can we but no doubt there is someone who can.

DNA technology is a two way street. It can pin the murder on a suspect by finding the suspects DNA on the victim and it can pin the murder on the suspect by finding the victim's DNA on the suspect (e.g. or the suspect's clothing, as in the pull over).
Mark Tidwell does forensic DNA work now, if he's around, would he agree to this? Would both be better than one?

No one has substantively argued the 120 or 130 points of information provided by Holohan but instead rely on two or three known errors in her reporting of the communication. The weight of evidence is on Holohan's side of the scale. We heard that all of these 120+ points of information were public knowledge when Holohan gave her information to Batters and Officer X but, as the final published study of the encounter will prove, this could not have been the case.

I am afraid the case against the veridicality of Holohan's reporting of the communication falls flat but I and others including Keen are still willing to be convinced. We need more substantial evidence than that offered so far, not suppositions, not could be or possibles or total dismisal based on personal attacks or innuendo.

Let me know when you have something and I will do likewise.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Garette:

They were able to defend their actions during the investigation as consistent with good policework and the preservation of individual liberties insofar as they are protected in the UK (said because I don't know the equivalent laws regarding warrants and such in the UK).

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing the police did at the time resulted in the conviction of Ruark. The proof of that: he was not charged or convicted of the crime for 18 bloody years! Are you serious?
Batter's bosses (e.g. Lundy) IGNORED Holohan's evidence; they took it with a grain of salt, they trashed it. It meant nothing to them. You would do the same, Claus would, Ed would, Cleo would...... tell me you would seriously consider it or not? This is a fact.

The forensic evidence, blood, fluid and tissue samples, from the victim was collected and preserved by the Medical Examiner. Period. If you want to credit the police for the work done by
the forensic pathologist (who is not a policeman, he is a medical doctor) go ahead but you are giving credit where credit does not belong.

The forensic evidence from the suspect was collected by the police from the suspect's garbage can, and thanks to Batters, was
preserved. I am talking here about the pull over. No, he didn't know nor did anybody know that any of that evidence would be of value 18 years later as a result of DNA technology. But it was. Thats what is important. And that's what vaidates the assertions of Holohan.

 

[Cleopatra]

We have seen attempts to discredit, trivialize and minimize Batters. We have seen people like Miss Cleo say he was so unimportant he didn't even testify and quote press reports to back that up.

Steve, please do not twist my posts. I have been asking whether Batters testified at least 10 times without getting a definite answer.

I quoted the press reports you provided and you know very well why I did that.

To show that the Police was represented in court ( so the testimony of the police officers was very relevant ) but from what we know it wasn't Batters who testified.

When somebody reads Batter's article he gets the impression that he was the key officer in the case and that the case was solved by the info Hollohan provided... so it's normal to pose questions.

My question was simple: Has the key officer testified in court?

Why is that difficult for you to understand it?

Also, why Hollohan didn't use this case as a publicity for her psychic powers? Is she that humble?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Garette:

Let me ask the concurrent question: Were murderers convicted based on psychic evidence before DNA testing?

No one is arguing that the suspect, Ruark, was NOT convicted based on the DNA evidence. For the upteenth time he was. He absolutely was convicted based on DNA ervidence. What is being argued is the fascinating co-incident of a medium having provided 120 to 130 points of information on the case, almost all of which save for two or three items, was correct which indicted the suspect 18 years before the DNA did so in court. What is more important is that evidence was given in an interview with two police officers (Batters and Officer X-I know his name but for some reason he does not want to be named here so I respect that) a few days after the murder. It was carefully written down by these officers, well Batters principally but witnessed by X, and
preserved. It was ignored as, no doubt, B.S., by Batters' superiors
such as Lundy. At the time Batters even would have ignored it as B.S. as well although he subsequently learned that everything he recorded save for a few uncheckable items (at the time) was
correct.

YES ..Holohan had no relevance in Ruark's eventual conviction. Ruark was not hard to find when they were ready to charge him with the 18 year old murder based on DNA .... as he was in jail for something else when this happened.

No one is claiming Holohan's evidence helped convict Ruark. It did not. Absolutely. Any assertion to the contrary is a red herring to defer attention from the co-incident ocurrence of Holohan having provided information which indicted him without DNA evidence. However clearly evidence derived from a psychic was, is and probably always will be in-admissible. It is too unreliable. Like
lie detectors and other types of evidence, it is not given any weight in a judicial proceeding. No one is arguing against this.

 

[juninho]

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.

No you didn't, Steve. You quite categorically stated that it was a FACT that Holohan was working at the RAF in a mediumistic capacity. I quote:

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

So, is this true or is just conjecture. What ARE the FACTS?

Simply question, simple answer required.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Cleo: Also, why Hollohan didn't use this case as a publicity for her psychic powers? Is she that humble?

I can't opine as to Holohan's humbleness. However her information was given as a confidential ... if the reason is not apparent to you, I am sorry. She was concerned that Ruark or one of his pals would kill her next.

Cleo, does that make sense?

 

[juninho]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No you didn't, Steve. You quite categorically stated that it was a FACT that Holohan was working at the RAF in a mediumistic capacity. I quote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, is this true or is just conjecture. What ARE the FACTS?

Simply question, simple answer required.