So who is this person who 'knows' who did it? What is the 'new evidence' they have provided? Jerry Lawton, responsible for the infamous 'GTA: Rothbury' article, explains:
A psychic has told police she sketched Jo Yeates’s killers only days before the murder.
Carol Everett says she saw the pair in a premonition she had about the landscape architect’s death.
The psychic investigator insists she “saw” Jo being attacked by two of a group of five men after she rejected their offer of a lift.
She said she did not realise the significance of her vision until Jo’s body was found three weeks later.
Carol, who claims her drawings have helped police in 20 previous cases, came forward after officers arrested Jo’s landlord Chris Jefferies, because she was certain detectives had got the wrong man.
The psychic – who handed police drawings of Soham double child killer Ian Huntley before his 2002 arrest, and claims she drew Washington sniper John Allen Muhammed – said she sketched Jo’s killing on December 7, 10 days before she vanished. “I just knew there was going to be something with this drawing,’’ she said. “I had a feeling about it.
The psychic goes on to give the height, age and race of the two men she thinks are guilty, which is quite irresponsible. As Jonathan, at No Sleep Til Brooklands says:
ultimately this kind of unfounded speculation from a single source who has no knowledge of the case can't be helpful, particularly when she's allowed to toss out potentially serious misinformation like this
Jonathan also looks at her 'contribution' to the Soham case:
She claimed to have drawn Huntley and Maxine Carr before they were arrested, a claim which seems impressive at first but falls apart when you scroll down to the untouched image, which has 'Carr' with beyond-shoulder-length hair, and an utterly generic white male drawing which claims Huntley has blue eyes (he doesn't)...and isn't even sure whether the thing on his head is hair or a scarf.
Jamie Thunder, who has also blogged about today's Star, calls it a 'disgrace':
I can’t imagine how this must make Joanna Yeates’ family feel. To have a national newspaper exploiting her death by printing pathetic, desperate, unfounded claims from a publicity-seeking fraud (or ‘psychic’) under a headline promising some sort of hope.
The Daily Star. Because sometimes losing your daughter just doesn’t hurt enough.
(Further posts about today's dreadful coverage - including the Sun's offer of a reward and Mail linking the murder to Facebook - from Roy Greenslade, Anorak and Angry Mob)
The Sun, meanwhile, are being almost subtle, until you realise they are leading their readers back to Chris Jefferies ... http://bit.ly/h2m0i5
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely disgusting, and that's not a word I usually use lightly. This is possibly a new low for tabloid newspaper stories, which is obviously up against pretty stiff competition.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, thanks for the name check in the last post you made, and keep up the good work!
I am concerned her website may have breached the Cancer Act and she could be prosecuted.
ReplyDeleteI hope.
Rhoderick Moncreiff
Once again the tablid press show they don't care about Jo or her family.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, this is a new low. I hope the parents of Jo take action and sue for emotional distress. There is not a jury in the world who could side with the star on this one.
As a side, once again the star and express cannot add up. 20p per paper is not "one great price" it is the same price...twice..hence 40p for their dross and lies.
The tabloid's coverage is beyond belief
ReplyDeleteWords fail me. Surely we can get this rag sued under the Trade Descriptions Act? It's no longer a newspaper, if indeed it ever truly was.
ReplyDeleteI wrote about the horrendously leading way this whole case has been handled, but this plumbs new depths. Some people will do anything for their 15 minutes.
ReplyDelete