Jacqui Poole Murder Case
- Thread starter SteveGrenard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- murder cases
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
I am sorry and apologized to Stumpy for any way I worded my question to him regarding a bit of trivia he would've known had
he gone through the paper trail with accuracy. There are no
further facts than that. There are many minor points in such
notes which any evaluator would be aware of, and which serve
as a test of sorts. I should have just asked him outright. Mea culpa.
I understand now that neither he nor Yuens actually saw first hand copies of the Holohan interview with Batters and Officer X
so they were not in posession of all the information seen by
Playfair and/or Keen. I understand also that perhaps by me posting this thread early they may've felt required to respond prematurely. I will now defer to further developments and allow
more time for these chores as they are time consuming and we all have other lives to lead while simultaenously attempting to debate this subject.
he gone through the paper trail with accuracy. There are no
further facts than that. There are many minor points in such
notes which any evaluator would be aware of, and which serve
as a test of sorts. I should have just asked him outright. Mea culpa.
I understand now that neither he nor Yuens actually saw first hand copies of the Holohan interview with Batters and Officer X
so they were not in posession of all the information seen by
Playfair and/or Keen. I understand also that perhaps by me posting this thread early they may've felt required to respond prematurely. I will now defer to further developments and allow
more time for these chores as they are time consuming and we all have other lives to lead while simultaenously attempting to debate this subject.
Steve
And you will continue to get concessions where anything that we report in not correct, I will acknowledge ANY error reported. This contrasts with the avoidance and evasion employed by you and Keen in matters where you are in error.
There is another reason why no evidence was given by or about Holohan. The information that she gave had no bearing on the case whatsoever. Please try and explain what new evidence she provided and how it influenced the direction of the case.
No you drew an incorrect inference (again), it is interesting that you are the only person to have come to this erroneous conclusion. The original article by Tony Youens explicitly states that Lundy recalled the pullover being recovered. The exact time that it was recovered is yet to be resolved, however the recovery of that sweater was recovered and retained as part of the normal Police process, the recovery and retention of that sweater was in no way a consequence of the "information" provided by Holohan. Furthermore Lundy is emphatic that the sweater yielded no DNA evidence, DCI McKInlay concurs. The ONLY DNA evidence came from the body of the deceased. The retension of of all exhibits that may yet yield forensic evidence in an unsolved murder is "STANDARD PRACTICE" if not a legal requirement. Are you seriously suggesting that without the intervention of Batters, Lundy would have simply returned the sweater to the prime suspect at the conclusion of the initial enquiry??!? The idea that a beat officer performing administrative duties could overrule a Det Supt in charge of a murder enquiry to insist on the retention of an exhibit is, frankly, laughable.
So Batters felt that a garment, that could yield forensic evidence and was seized from the prime suspect should be held as evidence? I think my 6 year old nephew could have reasonably made this decision.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Everything the detectives involved in this investigation did at the time resulted in the later conviction of Ruark. The proof of that: the probity and thoroughness of the original investigation team stood the test of time, aolowing them to achieve a conviction 18 YEARS LATER. Are you serious?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing Batters told Lundy of what Holohan had said was not already known. Nevertheless Lundy to not ignore or trash it. Lundy identified the fact that there was one crucial piece of missing evidence that could help with the enquiry i.e the location of the missing jewellery. Lundy tested Holohans claims by getting Batters to ask Holohan about the missing jewellery. She was unable to devine this piece of informataion which co-incidentally, was the only piece of informtion not known. This is hardly "ignoring" or "trashing" the info of Holohan is it?
LOL! Only Batters thought to preserve the pulloever from the prime suspect?!? Okay Steve, whatever.
Are you sure about this? The officers wrote down the information at the time is was related to them? We have read how Holohan wrote down at least some of the information - remember the mispelled "Ickenham" and the name "pokie". How much did she write down and how much did Batters write down, and more importantly when? You again unjustly malign Lundy, he didn't ignore Holohan's information, he, in fact, put it to the test. SOP!
Yet Keen originally said this in the previous thread
Don't you see some sort of conflict between those two statements? In any event there is no record of Batters notes appearing in the case papers, Lundy never saw them. The first McKinlay knew of them was following the publication of the PolFed article, he checked the case papers, the notes weren't there.
So, we haven't been given the same notes as Keen and Playfair?!? Why have we been given different notes? How many notes are there?
You requested this process, you are now bailing out!?!
Stumpy
And you will continue to get concessions where anything that we report in not correct, I will acknowledge ANY error reported. This contrasts with the avoidance and evasion employed by you and Keen in matters where you are in error.
There is another reason why no evidence was given by or about Holohan. The information that she gave had no bearing on the case whatsoever. Please try and explain what new evidence she provided and how it influenced the direction of the case.
No you drew an incorrect inference (again), it is interesting that you are the only person to have come to this erroneous conclusion. The original article by Tony Youens explicitly states that Lundy recalled the pullover being recovered. The exact time that it was recovered is yet to be resolved, however the recovery of that sweater was recovered and retained as part of the normal Police process, the recovery and retention of that sweater was in no way a consequence of the "information" provided by Holohan. Furthermore Lundy is emphatic that the sweater yielded no DNA evidence, DCI McKInlay concurs. The ONLY DNA evidence came from the body of the deceased. The retension of of all exhibits that may yet yield forensic evidence in an unsolved murder is "STANDARD PRACTICE" if not a legal requirement. Are you seriously suggesting that without the intervention of Batters, Lundy would have simply returned the sweater to the prime suspect at the conclusion of the initial enquiry??!? The idea that a beat officer performing administrative duties could overrule a Det Supt in charge of a murder enquiry to insist on the retention of an exhibit is, frankly, laughable.
So Batters felt that a garment, that could yield forensic evidence and was seized from the prime suspect should be held as evidence? I think my 6 year old nephew could have reasonably made this decision.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Everything the detectives involved in this investigation did at the time resulted in the later conviction of Ruark. The proof of that: the probity and thoroughness of the original investigation team stood the test of time, aolowing them to achieve a conviction 18 YEARS LATER. Are you serious?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing Batters told Lundy of what Holohan had said was not already known. Nevertheless Lundy to not ignore or trash it. Lundy identified the fact that there was one crucial piece of missing evidence that could help with the enquiry i.e the location of the missing jewellery. Lundy tested Holohans claims by getting Batters to ask Holohan about the missing jewellery. She was unable to devine this piece of informataion which co-incidentally, was the only piece of informtion not known. This is hardly "ignoring" or "trashing" the info of Holohan is it?
LOL! Only Batters thought to preserve the pulloever from the prime suspect?!? Okay Steve, whatever.
Are you sure about this? The officers wrote down the information at the time is was related to them? We have read how Holohan wrote down at least some of the information - remember the mispelled "Ickenham" and the name "pokie". How much did she write down and how much did Batters write down, and more importantly when? You again unjustly malign Lundy, he didn't ignore Holohan's information, he, in fact, put it to the test. SOP!
Yet Keen originally said this in the previous thread
Don't you see some sort of conflict between those two statements? In any event there is no record of Batters notes appearing in the case papers, Lundy never saw them. The first McKinlay knew of them was following the publication of the PolFed article, he checked the case papers, the notes weren't there.
So, we haven't been given the same notes as Keen and Playfair?!? Why have we been given different notes? How many notes are there?
You requested this process, you are now bailing out!?!
Stumpy
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
To which Keen has replied to me this morning as follows. Bear in mind that Batters was unavailable for reasons you
are fully aware of; Keen was at a conference last week and will be going abroad on Tuesday. Nonetheless I have the
following from him: (P.S.: Nobody is bailing out of this until it is settled):
"I have just seen your latest reply, and don't disagree with it. However I would prefer it - and frankly it would avoid the further risk of misunderstanding or duplication - if you left it to me to respond to the several charges, accusations, assumptions and misrepresentations in the correspondence from Shaw
and Youens.
"I have now spoken to Tony Batters, who has been awaiting Youens' response to Batters' invitation to see him and inspect the evidence (which, of course, he ought to have done before launching this ill-advised crusade), but I need to
make one or two more inquiries, hopefully on Monday, before preparing what I hope will be a pretty comprehensive answer. However, I go abroad on holiday crack of dawn on Tuesday, and the matter will have to rest until after my return, when I doubtless will have plenty of other more immediate matters to deal with.
"All I can tell you at the moment is that the answers to Youens and Shaw's criticisms should suffice to show how vigorously and with what folly they have been grasping the wrong end of the stick." (Keen)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------But I will answer in general terms anyway:
Stumpy you are still failing to get the message of this case. It is NOT and never has been about Holohan providing "evidence"
at the time which could be used to charge and convict Ruark. It is about the fact that here was a murderer who, after 18 years,
was charged and convicted on the basis of physical evidence (DNA). Holohan provided information on this case several days after the crime. She provided 120-130 points of information, all save three or four of which were found to be correct or veridical
after she gave this information. Since you nor I have examined the inventory of these points we cannot debate them one by one or even en masse. We can only point to them en masse. Are you now saying that you know what each of these 120 to 130 points of information are and they absolutely do not have any truth or relevance to the case?
The information she gave had no "bearing" on the case because of its source, not because it was not correct. The fact that Batters' superiors chose to ignore them also does not mean that they are not correct. Also it was not claimed she provided "new" evidence and I am not sure what that means. She did not provide evidence at all. She provided information which was ignored because it would be inadmissible due to its source. I know of no medium ever whose mediumistically obtained information has been admitted into evidence in a court proceeding in the U.S. or the U.K. If this were the case anybody can come to the police and say:
"I am a medium. The victim told me XYZ killed them so go arrest, charge and convict them."
It just doesn't work that way and you should, of all people, know that. People are convicted of such crimes based on eyewitness testimony, confessions and physical evidence.
I will reserve any further comments on the issue of the pull-over
until both Keen and Yuens are satisified about what is the truth.
Okay so let me get this straight. "everything" the detectives did lead to the conviction 18 years later. Is this the normal
time frame to obtain a conviction in the U.K.? Geez, I thought it was the DNA evidence and advances in DNA
technology coupled with the samples obtained from the victim by the forensic pathologist who is not a policeman
that resulted in the conviction. Now I am confused. I am sure everyone involved from Batters on up followed the
book and did as much as they could but clearly at best it was ancillary to the DNA basis for the conviction. If
not, surely Ruark would've been serving a life term a lot sooner than 18 years after the crime.
On the first part of this response, I again refer to the inventory of 120 to 130 pieces of information and ask how you
know (other than Lundy) ALL of this was already known a few days after the crime. Mediums get what they get, and
in this case Holohan claims to having gotten information that the deceased allegedly gave her. The deceased is not
likely to know what the living person who murdered her did with her jewelry so it is not surprising that Holohan was
unable to provide this information. As a detective I am sure you have surmised it was fenced and, if unusual, melted
down and cashed in. Although I am sure we are not talking about the crown jewels here. BTW Stumpy do you know why Ruark stole
this jewelry?
Now you are not serious. Spelling errors, eh? Oh my. Even living people make those! Do you believe people get smarter after they die? Or is this an expectation on your part if survival were a proven fact? I have seen this ridiculous mind-set beforeWho made the spelling errors anyway?
Holohan. Mediums hear and see telepathically. They do not
necessarily spell what they hear or see correctly.
The Lundy test, as you elaborate above, was with respect to what Ruark did with the loot after the fact. Holohan's claim is that the deceased came to her with respect to the details of her murder, who killed her, his car, etc. Frankly Holohan would not be expected to know this and didn't. You (and I) need to see that list to determine the strength of your assertion regarding these points of information.
Geez, now I am confused. I thought Lundy "tested" as "SOP" Holohan (see above) after Batters reported her information to him? Did he or didn't he?
I wonder how this failed to appear in the case papers? Did Lundy decide what went in and what stayed out and decided
this stayed out?
Of course if McKinlay knew nothing about it at the time, and just learned about it from the article, and then went to check for himself, why would he find those notes if they were kept out by somebody beneath him?
Now I am confused. First you implied you saw Batters' notes, then when I asked you questions about certain trivial
aspects of those notes you said you guys haven't seen them but plan to, and now you are saying you have seen them and
are questionning whether there are different notes? Pretty good. So have you or haven't you seen Batters' original notes?
I think not...
My goodness we digress, do we not?
To summarize the salient points:
1) A murder was commited 18 years ago
2) The police did a commendable job of investigation (I say this because the chain of evidence, and the evidence itself was intact 18 years later)
3) They, at the time could not indite (that is the term here at least) the most likely suspect
4) 18 years after the fact, DNA evidence was proven to be sufficient to obtain a conviction.
Now, ancillery points:
1) A psychic talked to a cop at the time
Irrelevant points
1) Batters testified or did not. Who cares, with regard to the psychic anything he said would be hearsay and inadmissable.
2) He found, retained or otherwise was involved with a piece of clothing. This clothing may or may not have the source of the DNA.
3) Batters held some, an important or no position vis a vis the investigation
These and other points have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and relate more to the ability/integrety of Keen, who is now reporting on the events.
Issues regarding the paranormal
1)When did the "psychic" talk to the cops?
2)Did she, at that time, or later, provide any information that the cops did not know? This is a yes or no.
It does not matter who testified in what capacity or anything else regarding the mechanics of the case. This is the key issue. Did she know anything that the cops did not. If not, we have a lot of arm waving about a non-issue. If so, we have something interesting.
Issues regarding Keen
1) Everything else not germane to the point immeadiately above. What in the name of god does it have to do with anything whether Batters was a beat cop or superintendent of police except insofar as it impeaches Keen as a reporter, his "peer" reviewers if they publish drek, and anything else Keen works on.
Two issues gentlemen: Keen and the psychic. One has nothing to do with the other.
To summarize the salient points:
1) A murder was commited 18 years ago
2) The police did a commendable job of investigation (I say this because the chain of evidence, and the evidence itself was intact 18 years later)
3) They, at the time could not indite (that is the term here at least) the most likely suspect
4) 18 years after the fact, DNA evidence was proven to be sufficient to obtain a conviction.
Now, ancillery points:
1) A psychic talked to a cop at the time
Irrelevant points
1) Batters testified or did not. Who cares, with regard to the psychic anything he said would be hearsay and inadmissable.
2) He found, retained or otherwise was involved with a piece of clothing. This clothing may or may not have the source of the DNA.
3) Batters held some, an important or no position vis a vis the investigation
These and other points have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and relate more to the ability/integrety of Keen, who is now reporting on the events.
Issues regarding the paranormal
1)When did the "psychic" talk to the cops?
2)Did she, at that time, or later, provide any information that the cops did not know? This is a yes or no.
It does not matter who testified in what capacity or anything else regarding the mechanics of the case. This is the key issue. Did she know anything that the cops did not. If not, we have a lot of arm waving about a non-issue. If so, we have something interesting.
Issues regarding Keen
1) Everything else not germane to the point immeadiately above. What in the name of god does it have to do with anything whether Batters was a beat cop or superintendent of police except insofar as it impeaches Keen as a reporter, his "peer" reviewers if they publish drek, and anything else Keen works on.
Two issues gentlemen: Keen and the psychic. One has nothing to do with the other.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
ED: 1) A murder was commited 18 years ago.
YES
ED: 2) The police did a commendable job of investigation (I say this because the chain of evidence, and the evidence itself was intact 18 years later)
We can be sure they did a great job ...just not good enough to pin it on the guy but certainly good enough to withstand the test of 18 years in storage. This happens. They are called cold cases and there are plenty of them.
ED: 3) They, at the time could not indict (that is the term here at least) the most likely suspect
Nope. (see above)
ED: 4) 18 years after the fact, DNA evidence was proven to be sufficient to obtain a conviction.
Yup.
ED: Now, ancillary points:
1) A psychic talked to a cop at the time
Yup.
Irrelevant points
1) Batters testified or did not. Who cares, with regard to the psychic anything he said would be hearsay and inadmissable.
Exactly.
2) He found, retained or otherwise was involved with a piece of clothing. This clothing may or may not have the source of the DNA.
To be decided.
3) Batters held some, an important or no position vis a vis the investigation. These and other points have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and relate more to the ability/integrity of Keen, who is now reporting on the events.
No they do not. You are correct.
ED: Issues regarding the paranormal
1)When did the "psychic" talk to the cops?
Two days after the crime was comitted. Not clear as to dates. There were additional encounters as well. This needs to be stipulated more precisely.
ED: 2)Did she, at that time, or later, provide any information that the cops did not know? This is a yes or no.
It's not yes or no because we here do not have all the information she provided. We only have the word of Lundy on this or at least I think we do. Via Youens and Stumpy.
ED: It does not matter who testified in what capacity or anything else regarding the mechanics of the case. This is the key issue. Did she know anything that the cops did not. If not, we have a lot of arm waving about a non-issue. If so, we have something interesting.
Exactly. Each of her 120 points of information, dated, need to be checked against what she could've known from normal means (newspapers, neighborhood gossip). Youens and Shaw have not demonstrated that.
ED: Issues regarding Keen
1) Everything else not germane to the point immediately above. What in the name of god does it have to do with anything whether Batters was a beat cop or superintendent of police except insofar as it impeaches Keen as a reporter, his "peer" reviewers if they publish drek, and anything else Keen works on.
ED: Two issues gentlemen: Keen and the psychic. One has nothing to do with the other.
Ed, Can we really kill electrons ? You gotta show me how to do this someday.
YES
ED: 2) The police did a commendable job of investigation (I say this because the chain of evidence, and the evidence itself was intact 18 years later)
We can be sure they did a great job ...just not good enough to pin it on the guy but certainly good enough to withstand the test of 18 years in storage. This happens. They are called cold cases and there are plenty of them.
ED: 3) They, at the time could not indict (that is the term here at least) the most likely suspect
Nope. (see above)
ED: 4) 18 years after the fact, DNA evidence was proven to be sufficient to obtain a conviction.
Yup.
ED: Now, ancillary points:
1) A psychic talked to a cop at the time
Yup.
Irrelevant points
1) Batters testified or did not. Who cares, with regard to the psychic anything he said would be hearsay and inadmissable.
Exactly.
2) He found, retained or otherwise was involved with a piece of clothing. This clothing may or may not have the source of the DNA.
To be decided.
3) Batters held some, an important or no position vis a vis the investigation. These and other points have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and relate more to the ability/integrity of Keen, who is now reporting on the events.
No they do not. You are correct.
ED: Issues regarding the paranormal
1)When did the "psychic" talk to the cops?
Two days after the crime was comitted. Not clear as to dates. There were additional encounters as well. This needs to be stipulated more precisely.
ED: 2)Did she, at that time, or later, provide any information that the cops did not know? This is a yes or no.
It's not yes or no because we here do not have all the information she provided. We only have the word of Lundy on this or at least I think we do. Via Youens and Stumpy.
ED: It does not matter who testified in what capacity or anything else regarding the mechanics of the case. This is the key issue. Did she know anything that the cops did not. If not, we have a lot of arm waving about a non-issue. If so, we have something interesting.
Exactly. Each of her 120 points of information, dated, need to be checked against what she could've known from normal means (newspapers, neighborhood gossip). Youens and Shaw have not demonstrated that.
ED: Issues regarding Keen
1) Everything else not germane to the point immediately above. What in the name of god does it have to do with anything whether Batters was a beat cop or superintendent of police except insofar as it impeaches Keen as a reporter, his "peer" reviewers if they publish drek, and anything else Keen works on.
ED: Two issues gentlemen: Keen and the psychic. One has nothing to do with the other.
Ed, Can we really kill electrons ? You gotta show me how to do this someday.
Steve, you astound me.
You are exactly like a character in one of Mark Twain's funnier books (embarrassingly, I can't remember the exact title, "An American Abroad" or somesuch).
He talks about a man who debates most infuriatingly because you argues his point with passion and vehemence for the longest time until at some point well into the debate, he somehow switches to the opposite position, then argues it and when you agree (because you've held the same position all along) walks away in triumph.
You have done that in this thread.
First, this case is great evidence of a psychic solving a crime.
Then all the details which, as Ed points out, are ultimately irrelevant to the original claim.
Then retreat on the details while berating those who pointed out the errors to begin with.
Now you're saying that this case isn't about Holohan solving the crime, just about some telepathic ability maybe.
On top of that, you're saying you don't even know about that because you haven't even seen the 120 of 130 statements.
Amazing.
Let me save you some time. Time you could have saved if you'd paid attention to some earlier posts.
Read Batters' article again. List the things he says Holohan said. It's not the whole 120, but it is enough to get a feel for what Batters must have thought was most impressive.
None of what he lists, none of it, is indicative of telepathic ability.
Beyond that, notice (I ask, undoubtedly futilely, again) the discrepancies in Holohan's methods. The nightly visitations as compared to the self-induced trances.
And finally, please explain Keen's talk about the spirit of the victim being upset in light of Hurst's and JE's and everybody else's representation of spirits as always content.
You are exactly like a character in one of Mark Twain's funnier books (embarrassingly, I can't remember the exact title, "An American Abroad" or somesuch).
He talks about a man who debates most infuriatingly because you argues his point with passion and vehemence for the longest time until at some point well into the debate, he somehow switches to the opposite position, then argues it and when you agree (because you've held the same position all along) walks away in triumph.
You have done that in this thread.
First, this case is great evidence of a psychic solving a crime.
Then all the details which, as Ed points out, are ultimately irrelevant to the original claim.
Then retreat on the details while berating those who pointed out the errors to begin with.
Now you're saying that this case isn't about Holohan solving the crime, just about some telepathic ability maybe.
On top of that, you're saying you don't even know about that because you haven't even seen the 120 of 130 statements.
Amazing.
Let me save you some time. Time you could have saved if you'd paid attention to some earlier posts.
Read Batters' article again. List the things he says Holohan said. It's not the whole 120, but it is enough to get a feel for what Batters must have thought was most impressive.
None of what he lists, none of it, is indicative of telepathic ability.
Beyond that, notice (I ask, undoubtedly futilely, again) the discrepancies in Holohan's methods. The nightly visitations as compared to the self-induced trances.
And finally, please explain Keen's talk about the spirit of the victim being upset in light of Hurst's and JE's and everybody else's representation of spirits as always content.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
And still is. She gave this information two days or whatever after the crime, and it was ignored and it took 18 years to convict the person she said did it. And if it were not for advances in DNA technology, both her information and the killer, would be unknown to us today. Oh, and yes, he would be free.
They are irrelevant but who brought them up? I think you better go back and look at who I was refuting and why.
And LOL you are doing it again, pointing out errors which are irrelevant. Do I have to go back and kill more electrons or are we agreed those points are irrelevant to the case?
It's actually never been about anything else. It's about Holohan providing information she claims she obtained from communication with the deceased naming her killer, his car, the details of her demise, etc and many other points that have not been revealed to Youens or Shaw as well as myself. Holohan did not "solve" the crime. This is not about solving a crime. Its about a deceased person allegedly communicating with a medium giving her details which did solve the crime but which the police (e.g. Lundy) could not accept because of its source. And this is completely understandable.
I have never said I have seen them all or are even aware of all of them. Where did you get this from? Keen has shared some of them with us previously and with me by private e-mail so I can claim having seen only a few of them. And neither has Stumpy or Youens seen all of them.
Obviously he was constrained by space and other limitations which you cannot be made aware of and I say this without any
motive for being less than forthright and you will have to accept this. I agree the items he highlights in the article are probably among the most startling and evidential for him as they should be.
Do you know what IS indicative of telepathic ability so you can make a logical comparison? My understanding is that you feel nothing is indicative of it. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I reiterate we need to see the collection of all 120 to 130 points to make a thorough analysis.
I cannot speak for Holohan or how she gets her information or whether these are discrepancies as you choose to characterize them or SOP for her. Frankly if she got her information by trancing, dreaming, concentrating, scrying, tuning out or tuning in, or whatever you choose to call it, it is irrelevant as well. This subject is a topic on another entire thread with respect to JE. I am sure it is of interest but it is not related to the validity of the information she provided.
edited to add: irrelevant digression.........
I would like to but I am not Keen. Nor can I make a valid comparison with the sorts of contacts JE or Hurst allegedly make and that of a woman who was JUST brutally raped and murdered by a person who was then and who remained free for 18 years after that. I do not recall any JE or Hurst transcript involving a rape/robbery/murder victim so soon after their death coming up. Does anyone else? I recall one JE case of a young man whose parents were in the gallery who was murdered by a Salavadoran drug gang member who had fled the country and JE advising the parents nt to get involved in his appehension. The mother said she was thinking of going down to Salvador, tracking him down and having him apprehended. That's the only case I can recall JE having had on TV that comes close to this but the circumstances were entirely different and the victim was obviously more interested in keeping his mother out of harm's way then her going down to Central America and trying to get his killer.
Heck if I were a spirit and saw my killer go free, JE and Hurst notwithstanding, I'd be pissed. But since I am not there yet, I can only speculate how I would feel if I will "feel" anything at all. If spirits exist I think it would be naive to characterize them all as at rest and content.
FutileJester
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2002
- Messages
- 274
Ed said:
Well said!
FutileJester
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2002
- Messages
- 274
SteveGrenard said:
This is not evidence of a psychic solving a crime; even disregarding any skepticism about the claim, it is at most evidence of psychic ability. I don't see that any part of the process used to eventually convict Ruark would have happened any differently if Holohan had never said anything.
Um, agreed. But then why do you state immediately above this that it still is good evidence of a psychic solving a crime?
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Correct.
Because nothing she could've provided, and in fact nothing any psychic/medium could provide would meet any standard for admissible evidence in a court of law in the U.S. the UK and probably most other constitutional countries governed by the rule of secular law.
Thus she did not solve the crime by such a standard, she did not provide any information that resulted in a conviction. However there has been considerable debate, in fact in other threads here and elsewhere, about the subject of mediums and psychics "providing information to help solve crimes" which would be a better choice of words than merely just "solve." This case is interesting because we have a police officer who has gone on record, taken down a medium's information in a specific instance and then had the gumption to publish it in a journal circulated to his fellow law enforcement brethren. It involves a case where a large number of specific points (120 to 130) were involved and documented (Yes, I know, we dont have these yet) and where a conviction ocurred 18 years after the fact which confirmed the medium's statement.
We need to look at this case in the absence of hyperbole, silly irrelevancies as Ed pointed out and on the narrow focus of facts concerning the medium's information. We need to rule out or
prove she got this information through normal channels. We cannot do that without knowing all the 120 to 130 points plus what she could have possibly been aware of from public sources two days after the crime barring of course that she was directly involved in the case and got her information that way. This is a fear many mediums express about local cases ...that they be implicated in them physically in some way. One of the striking things about this case and its detractors is that they repeat that there was nothing the medium provided that the police didn't already know. I am not sure if there was absolutely "nothing." But of many of the points she revealed to the police many were already known to them but these were not known the public. This enabled Batters and his associate X to assess some of the information rapidly.
Good. We are being orderly and that warms the cockles of my catholic school heart.
One very important point regarding testimony. We must bear in mind that Batters did not (forget whether he actually could have) testify under oath, with the specter of the power of the state over him in the event of purgery, to anything regarding this alleged medium. With all the talk of a capitol case and courts of law and all, let us not forget that, in the absence of corroberation, anything that Batters says is not worth a bucket of warm spit, cop or no cop.
I want the contemporanious notes regarding the 130 points, or whatever, that were handed in at the time of the events in question. A cop making false statements regarding an investigation would have dire consequences here and I suspect our cousins would take an equally dim view of such behavior. Those documents DO have the power of the law behind them. If all we have are unwitnessed notes or recollections we have nothing.
I trust that we can agree on that.
One very important point regarding testimony. We must bear in mind that Batters did not (forget whether he actually could have) testify under oath, with the specter of the power of the state over him in the event of purgery, to anything regarding this alleged medium. With all the talk of a capitol case and courts of law and all, let us not forget that, in the absence of corroberation, anything that Batters says is not worth a bucket of warm spit, cop or no cop.
I want the contemporanious notes regarding the 130 points, or whatever, that were handed in at the time of the events in question. A cop making false statements regarding an investigation would have dire consequences here and I suspect our cousins would take an equally dim view of such behavior. Those documents DO have the power of the law behind them. If all we have are unwitnessed notes or recollections we have nothing.
I trust that we can agree on that.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Ed said:
In order for Batters to have introduced the interview he had with medium on the witness stand, the examining attorney for either side would have to ask him about it. He could not expound on this himself. Therefore, if he was not asked anything about this subject he could not perjure himself. Batters interview with Holohan IS liable to corroberation because if he was asked:
about the interview with the medium, and then asked if
there was a witness to it, he would have had to answer yes.
He did NOT interview the medium alone. He did so in the presence of another police officer whom we have been calling X.
(I am not sure if X's first name is Tony or not, however).
The note taking was witnessed (see above) and from what Stumpy says they were handed over and "tested" by Tony Batters' boss, Tony Lundy. At least Lundy is alleged to have Batters or whomever go ask Holohan about the missing jewelry ...if I got this right from Stumpy somewhere above.
This then was the "test," she failed........ and the interview
apparently filed. It would not be admissible anyway.
I agree we need to see those 130 points of information before assessing the legitimacy or non of the information provided by the medium. Right now all we seem to have is an opinion by Youens from Lundy that there was nothing in there he (Lundy) recalls which the police didn't already know. As I also pointed out even if the police knew every stitch of those 130 points of information, how much did the public, and thus Holohan know through normal means?
Yup.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
To Q. 1 .. that would be my assumption based on what I know so far about this. However I think we all agree we need the inventory of 120 to 130 individual points of information to assess this more thoroughly.
To Q.2. ...I have said this repeatedly, no, nothing Holohan provided contributed to the charging and conviction, 18 years after the crime, of Anthony (Pokie) Ruark.
I have to leave to the hospital for a few hours so I will wait to you finish your thoughts (see end of your post which was posted twice BTW--you can delete one if you want) before addressing anything further. So far your information looks very interesting and its the first any of us have been exposed to some of this.
Hi Steve
I'm afraid i'm rather losing the train of your thoughts. First, you agree with Garrettes statement that "this case is great evidence of a psychic solving a crime." Then you appear to contradict this when you reply to Garrettes statemetn that "Now you're saying that this case isn't about Holohan solving the crime, just about some telepathic ability maybe."
Can we try and distill this into two seperate issues?
1. Holohan provided information that could only have come from the deceased in the manner that she claims.
2. The informtation provided by Holohan contributed towards the conviction of Ruark.
Can you clarify if that is your position?
If so let me deal with poinit 2 first. Put simply, if Holohan hadn't contacted Police, Ruark would still have been arrested and the conviction obtained. The sweater is a red-herring in many ways. The sweater would have been recovered and retained even if Holohan had not contacted Police (bear in mind that Lundy and McKInlay dispute that it yielded any DNA that was used in evidence). If Holohan had described the clothing worn by her attacker and told Police where to find said clothing that would have been significant. Neither the clothing or location was given by Holohan (at least neither detail appears in the notes that I have). Her contact with the Police is incidental. Her intervention may have impressed Batters, but in no way influenced the decision making of Lundy or McKinlay (who was unaware of her information) or caused any police action in any form that contributed to the investigation and conviction. I hope that clarifies our positon in relation to Holohans role in the investigation and conviction. Put simply: there was none.
Obviously the means by which Holhan obtained her information is of great interest here. A piece of crucial and piviotal detail is missing, our efforts to clarify this with DC Batters have been unsuccesful to date. No where is it explicitly stated that Batters took notes at the time and during the interview with Holohan. At the moment it seems to be an unchallenged assumption. Why do we query this? Tony Youens and I are in possession of three sets of typed up notes that were apparently prepared in "Sept 2001". We have not (yet) been able to view the original handwritten notes (you aware of part of the reason for this). Interestingly the typed up notes are headed thus: "1st Police Interview with Christine Holohanon or about 17.2.1983". The phrase "on or about" is a common Police term used to signify that the notes are NOT contemporaneous i.e taken at the time. It is absolute, basic, fundamental Police Practice to commence a note taking process by recording the time and date that the process starts. The phrase is employed when writing up notes of a meeting taken on a previous date. The typed up notes do not state, for instance "1st Policde Interview with Christin Holohan commencing 11.30 hrs on Thursday 17.2.83". If it is the case that the notes were written on a date AFTER the interview with Holohan we are then in the realms of not judging the accuracy of Holohan's information BUT the accuracy of Batter's recall. The Courts have recognised the fallibility of human memory, they simply will NOT allow the use of notes not taken at the time of, or immediately after, any particulay event. Apparently officer X has apparently signed an affadavit confirming the accuracy of the notes. However officer X is being asked to confirm the accuracy of notes apparently written up after the event of an interview that took place some 15 YEARS EARLIER! Now here's the thing, pay attention. Holohan apparently wrote down a lot of the information given to her during her trances. These notes were never submitted to the enquiry, DCI McKinlay cannot locate them because they are still in the possession of Batters. When the Polfed article was published DCI McKInlay was made aware of the contents. He read the article and was, quite rightly, concerned about the absence of original notes provided during the murder investigation. He was sufficiently concerned to launch an internal investigation into the whereabouts of the notes. Batters had retired so McKinlay interviewed officer X about the whereabouts of the notes. Officer X DENIED ALL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NOTES PROVIDED BY HOLOHAN!
We do not dispute that an interview involving officer x, Batters and Holohan took place. We are very anxious about the accuracy of the notes provided in respect of the notes. We do not allege that Batters or officer X have done anything wrong whatsoever. Batters has never alleged (to our knowledge) that he took the notes at the time of and during the interview with Holohan and then submitted them to the enquiry.
In respect of the information given by Holohan:
To fully comprehend this you have to understand the dynamics of a major enquiry and the effect it has on the local community - this is not something either you, Keen or Batters has had any experience of, I, on the other hand have extensive experience in such matters.
Within a major enquiry Police officers merely gather information. The information exits already, the Police task is to locate and secure that informtion. Obviously the Police task is made harder by the reluctance of witnesses to come forward for a variety of reasons. This is counterbalanced by an opposing force: GOSSIP!
The sole topic of conversation in the pubs, over the garden fence, in the supermarket in a community that has had the misfortune of a murder in its midst will be the murder itself. Information flows into the murder enquiry but it also flows out to friends, neighbours, the old woman at the bus-stop etc. We believe that it is significant that Holohan lived in the same borough as the murder victim. It is certain that the main topic of conversation within the Ruislip community during the aftermath of the murder would have been gruesome crime itself. Someone close to the family of the deceased gets to know the details of the event. It's natural that the family would want to discuss this with those close to them. The recipient of the information then find themselves in the enviable position of knowing the inside track of the hot topic of conversation within the area. It would take exceptional fortitude NOT to disclose what you knew. There are any number of routes that the information could have reached Holohan, living as she did, in the same borough as the deceased. Did she do private readings for anyone who lived close to Poole? Did she know Poole herself?? Did she know Ruark??
Bear in mind that this took place before the proliferation of the internet. The cold/war/hot reading techniques were not widely known at that time. Such a technique I can well imagine would create an impression on a PC eager to come up with that nugget of information to crack the case. The impression that a bit of Hot reading created would easily lower the defences of Batters to a spot of cold reading (unconcious body languadge would allow Holohan to home in on a hit). We do not claim that this is definately what happened, Keen challenged us to come up with a non-paranormal explanation, we have now done so. There are alternative explanation that are possible. One of those possibilities is that Holohan demonstrated supernatural contact with the deceased Jaqui Poole - possible yes, likely....err no.
regards
Stumpy
I'm afraid i'm rather losing the train of your thoughts. First, you agree with Garrettes statement that "this case is great evidence of a psychic solving a crime." Then you appear to contradict this when you reply to Garrettes statemetn that "Now you're saying that this case isn't about Holohan solving the crime, just about some telepathic ability maybe."
Can we try and distill this into two seperate issues?
1. Holohan provided information that could only have come from the deceased in the manner that she claims.
2. The informtation provided by Holohan contributed towards the conviction of Ruark.
Can you clarify if that is your position?
If so let me deal with poinit 2 first. Put simply, if Holohan hadn't contacted Police, Ruark would still have been arrested and the conviction obtained. The sweater is a red-herring in many ways. The sweater would have been recovered and retained even if Holohan had not contacted Police (bear in mind that Lundy and McKInlay dispute that it yielded any DNA that was used in evidence). If Holohan had described the clothing worn by her attacker and told Police where to find said clothing that would have been significant. Neither the clothing or location was given by Holohan (at least neither detail appears in the notes that I have). Her contact with the Police is incidental. Her intervention may have impressed Batters, but in no way influenced the decision making of Lundy or McKinlay (who was unaware of her information) or caused any police action in any form that contributed to the investigation and conviction. I hope that clarifies our positon in relation to Holohans role in the investigation and conviction. Put simply: there was none.
Obviously the means by which Holhan obtained her information is of great interest here. A piece of crucial and piviotal detail is missing, our efforts to clarify this with DC Batters have been unsuccesful to date. No where is it explicitly stated that Batters took notes at the time and during the interview with Holohan. At the moment it seems to be an unchallenged assumption. Why do we query this? Tony Youens and I are in possession of three sets of typed up notes that were apparently prepared in "Sept 2001". We have not (yet) been able to view the original handwritten notes (you aware of part of the reason for this). Interestingly the typed up notes are headed thus: "1st Police Interview with Christine Holohanon or about 17.2.1983". The phrase "on or about" is a common Police term used to signify that the notes are NOT contemporaneous i.e taken at the time. It is absolute, basic, fundamental Police Practice to commence a note taking process by recording the time and date that the process starts. The phrase is employed when writing up notes of a meeting taken on a previous date. The typed up notes do not state, for instance "1st Policde Interview with Christin Holohan commencing 11.30 hrs on Thursday 17.2.83". If it is the case that the notes were written on a date AFTER the interview with Holohan we are then in the realms of not judging the accuracy of Holohan's information BUT the accuracy of Batter's recall. The Courts have recognised the fallibility of human memory, they simply will NOT allow the use of notes not taken at the time of, or immediately after, any particulay event. Apparently officer X has apparently signed an affadavit confirming the accuracy of the notes. However officer X is being asked to confirm the accuracy of notes apparently written up after the event of an interview that took place some 15 YEARS EARLIER! Now here's the thing, pay attention. Holohan apparently wrote down a lot of the information given to her during her trances. These notes were never submitted to the enquiry, DCI McKinlay cannot locate them because they are still in the possession of Batters. When the Polfed article was published DCI McKInlay was made aware of the contents. He read the article and was, quite rightly, concerned about the absence of original notes provided during the murder investigation. He was sufficiently concerned to launch an internal investigation into the whereabouts of the notes. Batters had retired so McKinlay interviewed officer X about the whereabouts of the notes. Officer X DENIED ALL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NOTES PROVIDED BY HOLOHAN!
We do not dispute that an interview involving officer x, Batters and Holohan took place. We are very anxious about the accuracy of the notes provided in respect of the notes. We do not allege that Batters or officer X have done anything wrong whatsoever. Batters has never alleged (to our knowledge) that he took the notes at the time of and during the interview with Holohan and then submitted them to the enquiry.
In respect of the information given by Holohan:
To fully comprehend this you have to understand the dynamics of a major enquiry and the effect it has on the local community - this is not something either you, Keen or Batters has had any experience of, I, on the other hand have extensive experience in such matters.
Within a major enquiry Police officers merely gather information. The information exits already, the Police task is to locate and secure that informtion. Obviously the Police task is made harder by the reluctance of witnesses to come forward for a variety of reasons. This is counterbalanced by an opposing force: GOSSIP!
The sole topic of conversation in the pubs, over the garden fence, in the supermarket in a community that has had the misfortune of a murder in its midst will be the murder itself. Information flows into the murder enquiry but it also flows out to friends, neighbours, the old woman at the bus-stop etc. We believe that it is significant that Holohan lived in the same borough as the murder victim. It is certain that the main topic of conversation within the Ruislip community during the aftermath of the murder would have been gruesome crime itself. Someone close to the family of the deceased gets to know the details of the event. It's natural that the family would want to discuss this with those close to them. The recipient of the information then find themselves in the enviable position of knowing the inside track of the hot topic of conversation within the area. It would take exceptional fortitude NOT to disclose what you knew. There are any number of routes that the information could have reached Holohan, living as she did, in the same borough as the deceased. Did she do private readings for anyone who lived close to Poole? Did she know Poole herself?? Did she know Ruark??
Bear in mind that this took place before the proliferation of the internet. The cold/war/hot reading techniques were not widely known at that time. Such a technique I can well imagine would create an impression on a PC eager to come up with that nugget of information to crack the case. The impression that a bit of Hot reading created would easily lower the defences of Batters to a spot of cold reading (unconcious body languadge would allow Holohan to home in on a hit). We do not claim that this is definately what happened, Keen challenged us to come up with a non-paranormal explanation, we have now done so. There are alternative explanation that are possible. One of those possibilities is that Holohan demonstrated supernatural contact with the deceased Jaqui Poole - possible yes, likely....err no.
regards
Stumpy
So there is nothing unquestionably contemporaneous?
Is this Keen guy mad?
We might have to rely on lost "contempory" notes of a medium?
There is nothing here (if the above is accurate) and further discussion is simply an exercise in mutual masturbation.
Ah. The wonders of the mysterious psychic world.
Tell me Officer Stumpy, if you went into a criminal proceeding with this kind of stuff, how far would the Justice kick your butt? Would it hit that Battleship moored across the Thames or would you clear it?
Is this Keen guy mad?
We might have to rely on lost "contempory" notes of a medium?
There is nothing here (if the above is accurate) and further discussion is simply an exercise in mutual masturbation.
Ah. The wonders of the mysterious psychic world.
Tell me Officer Stumpy, if you went into a criminal proceeding with this kind of stuff, how far would the Justice kick your butt? Would it hit that Battleship moored across the Thames or would you clear it?