A murder in Turkey

The following borrows heavily from a blogost by Jane Fae.

Jane looked at the coverage of Chris Collier and his conviction, in Turkey, for the murder of his wife.

The headlines in the UK media included:

Two things stand out from these headlines from the Sun, Mail and Metro. First, it is stated as fact that Julia Collier 'was born a man'. Second, the use of 'after he discovered' implies that there is a link between the murder and this 'discovery'.

But are either of these things true? After all, the Sentinel in Staffordshire (where Collier lived before emigrating) and an English-language newspaper in Turkey reported the conviction without reference to Julia being 'born a man'.

Jane Fae suggests this angle may have come to prominence in 2010 in an article in the Daily Star by Jerry Lawton. It said:

Police are examining postings in an internet forum used by expat Brits from someone claiming to be Collier.

One said: “I paid for my wife and then moved to Kusadasi in my rented apartment.”

The blogger added that Julia “used to be a bloke”.

Police are trying to establish if Collier himself posted the message or was being taunted by someone posing as him.

The forum in question is the Kusadasi Fans Forum. There, in 2006, someone using the screen-name 'chriscollier' wrote:

I paid for my wife, and then moved to kusadasi in my rented appartment, my wife julia who may i add used to be a bloke sings in the koramar and she brings me hours of happenis. What you all reckon then. I want your views.

In their replies, the forum moderators pointed out that this person was posting from an IP in Leeds. Not from Kusadasi, Turkey. The user was banned after posting only 11 comments.

It is very difficult - maybe impossible - to know who posted this comment and yet this appears to be the origin of, and only piece of evidence for, the 'she used to be a man' claim.

If we imagine that Collier did actually write that comment in 2006 and the murder took place in 2010, the way the headlines have linked both events appears problematic.

But the possibility that he 'was being taunted by someone posing as him' in this comment certainly raises questions about the recent coverage. 


Moreover, the claim he 'bought' his wife and 'then moved to Kusadasi' is at odds with the statement from a friend quoted in most of the articles, who says:

"Julia was just the nicest girl you could ever meet. She was a singer, and she used to perform at the Korumar Hotel in Kusadasi. That is where they met."

It is not clear if the trans claim is true and, even if it is, whether it was the motive. It appears that all the articles making these claims - which the local paper in Staffs, and a paper in Turkey did not repeat - are relying on a six-year-old comment on a forum that could have been written by anyone.

(Hat-tip to Jane for her detective work)

Daily Star: 'shamelessly looking to cash in'

From 6 June to today, the Daily Star has put the word 'Giggs' in its main front page headline every single day (this excludes the Daily Star Sunday, which has stuck with Pippa Middleton for the last two weeks). The first twelve of these front pages are available on the Media Blog.

Yet on 17 June - the 11th day - the paper's editorial was criticising the people involved in this tawdry story for forgetting there are:

little children at the centre of this scandal.

And for:

shamelessly looking to cash in

Indeed.

Today, the 14th front page claims that 'Sex addict Giggs gets therapy':

It's another story that the Star calls an 'exclusive' and states that Giggs is in some kind of therapy. Is he?

Here's how Jerry Lawton begins his article:

Manchester United have signed up God to keep bedhopping stars like Ryan Giggs on the straight and narrow.

God?

Club chaplain Rev John Boyers revealed his job now involves teaching players about “sexual ethics”. The morality lessons come after the club has been rocked by a series of sex scandals...

Now club bosses want Rev Boyers to lecture rising stars on sexual morality in a bid to stop future scandals.

So Giggs isn't actually 'getting therapy'. The Star's 'exclusive' is that Manchester United FC has a chaplain. But this isn't really an 'exclusive', or even news, as Boyers has been doing that job since 1992.

But the Star tries to pretend there's something new here. Lawton says Boyers is 'now' teaching about 'sexual ethics' 'after' recent 'sex scandals' - as if this is somehow linked to the Giggs case.

It isn't.

He quotes Boyers saying:

“I do some work with the academy teaching them life skills – situations in life they may encounter and how they might cope.

“Things like friendship, sexual ethics, bereavement, bullying and prejudice, racism. I try to help them prepare for adult life.

But compare that to something Boyers wrote in a June 2010 article called 'Prayers for the players' (pdf):

I do some educational work with younger academy players. SCORE has some ‘Life-skills’ teaching material which looks at issues such as friendships, bereavement, bullying, sexual ethics, decision making, prejudice, privilege and responsibility etc.

Lawton goes on to quote Boyers saying:

“I also do general pastoral support and spiritual support work right across the club...

“We’ve had many situations in football ranging from drugs scandals to financial scandals and behavioural scandals which show there is real worth in having a chaplaincy.’’

And compare that to a quote from Boyers found in an Independent article from November 1995:

"Clubs are seeing the value of the chaplaincy as a pastoral and spiritual safety net...

"We've had many situations in football ranging from drugs scandals to financial scandals and behavioural scandals which show there is real worth in having a chaplaincy."

It could be the Boyers has said the same things then and now. But it appears that Lawton is copying previous statements from Boyers that he's found on the internet and is making them out to be both new and related to Giggs.

Lawton adds:

The minister will not discuss individual cases.

Which sounds a bit like the Independent's:

Rev Boyers won't discuss individual cases...

Lawton then relies on the anonymous sources he's so fond of using, claiming:

But club sources say Giggs has come under his wing during his 21-year career with Manchester United.

“I guess some people heed advice more than others,’’ the source said.

“Rev John is a highly regarded member of the team and does his best to help set our young players along the right path. Handling fame and all that goes with it is not easy.’’

Note that the 'club source' doesn't actual back up the contention made in the sentence before it.

So the story is nonsense, dubiously assembled and almost completely fictitious.

And so have most of the Star's front pages 'stories' about Giggs over the last few weeks, including the 'sexy girlie romp' that turned out to be a trip to an estate agent and the joke that was treated as fact. And many of them carry the byline of Jerry Lawton, the man behind the infamous Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury article.

For example, yesterday's front page stated:


The 'lover' in question is not Imogen Thomas, who is pictured in her underwear, but Giggs' sister-in-law Natasha. 'Sex romp revenge' sounds like a set of random Daily Star buzzwords, thrown together to sell papers. It's also an 'exclusive'. It says on the front page:

Ryan Giggs's sister-in-law lover will romp with EIGHT celebrity hunks to make the footie love cheat jealous.

This shows, of course, that the Star is deeply concerned about the:

little children at the centre of this scandal.

Lawton's article goes on to reveal:

Natasha, 28, has revealed to Facebook pals the names of eight stars she drools over.

So: woman tells friends that she fancies some celebs. It's not quite the same as saying she 'will romp' with them all in some 'sex revenge plot'.

Saturday's front page story claimed:


'I dressed a French maid', plus the word 'exclusive' and the photo all make it appear as if this was an interview, or at least an actual statement from a woman involved (Natasha, again).

The article by Lawton and Aaron Tinney began:

Ryan Giggs liked his sister-in-law lover to dress up as a French maid.

The Star's 'proof' for this claim:

Naughty Natasha, 28, donned a pink frilly micro-skirt and black G-string with white spots to thrill him.

And she was so proud of her cheeky look she showed it off on her Facebook site. Although her snap showed only her bottom she assured friends it was hers.

Pals said the fantastic figure she reveals in the photo explains why married Manchester United legend Ryan, 37, was tempted to play away from home for eight years.

So: woman posts picture of her bum on Facebook. Neither the anonymous pal who is quoted nor anyone else says anything about dressing as a French maid - except Lawton.

The day before, the paper was claiming 'another great Daily Star exclusive':


Once again, the headline makes it sound as if this is something that has actually been said. In this case, by Kym Marsh. 'Giggs bedded babe in my home'? Well, here's Lawton again:

Coronation Street beauty Kym Marsh fears Ryan Giggs romped in her bedroom with his sister-in-law... Kym, 35, and partner Jamie Lomas, 31...believe the lovers got it on in their posh pad.

So no actual proof then? And did Marsh actually say that?

One of Kym’s pals told the Daily Star: “Kym believes they could have been using her bedroom for their affair."

Ah, of course - another anonymous pal, who reveals that someone thinks something might have happened in their house before they moved in but since they weren't there don't really have any idea whether it did. Or not.

That's 'another great Daily Star exclusive'.

The day before that, the Star came up with this 'exclusive':


A 'baby bump'. 'Who's the daddy'? Here's Jerry 'the Pulitzer's coming soon' Lawton again:

Ryan Giggs was in shock last night after his sister-in-law lover flew home proudly sporting a mummy tummy.

Since Giggs isn't quoted, there's no way of knowing if he's 'shocked' or not. That's assuming she's even pregnant:

Natasha Giggs, 28, sparked speculation she might be pregnant as she jetted back to Britain looking rounder than normal.

Since she's only been in the public eye a few weeks, it's hard to know how the paper can claim to know what her 'normal' shape is.

But 'sparked speculation she might be pregnant'? That's a bit different to a definite 'baby bump'. Who was speculating?

One onlooker said: “The terminal was buzzing with talk that Natasha is pregnant again. She might just have been comfort-eating but if she is expecting, it will be yet another nightmare for Giggsy.”

So the speculation is from the all-seeing anonymous 'onlooker' who may or may not be someone in the Daily Star 'newsroom'.

The Mail website carried the same photos of Natasha Giggs at the airport. They didn't mention any 'speculation' and their pictures don't really show any noticeable 'baby bump'. But claiming someone is pregnant when they aren't is something the Star has done several times before.

Despite churning out this inaccurate, misleading, utterly tedious drivel day after day, the Daily Star still manages to be the fourth best-selling daily newspaper in the UK. But is the 15.9% fall in sales between April 2010 and April 2011 a sign that their readers are getting tired of being treated like fools?

Star turns joke into front page 'exclusive'

Today's Daily Star front page lead claims to be another 'exclusive':


It's a ridiculous, completely misleading headline, designed to sell papers using sex and titillation. The article was written by Jerry 'GTA: Rothbury' Lawton and it is yet another 'story' based on what someone has posted on Twitter.

But here's what Imogen Thomas actually posted on Twitter two days ago (that's some 'exclusive'):

(SSEA refers to Swansea, the football team recently promoted to the Premier League)

So, not what the front page claims at all. Instead, a jokey remark on Twitter is deliberately misrepresented as it is splashed all over the front page of the fourth best-selling daily paper in the country.

(Hat-tip to Jonathan)

The Star's latest source for a front page exclusive: a psychic

As the tabloid media continues its frenzy over the murder of Jo Yeates, today's Daily Star claimed an 'exclusive':


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 'downmarket' Mail

The Daily Star is at it again: putting headlines on its front page which aren't really truthful.

Today's is 'Rooney gets a good kicking - Holidaying player attacked'.

The clear implication is that Wayne Rooney has been physically 'attacked' while on holiday in Dubai.

When the story begins - under the Star's worthless 'exclusive' banner - it makes clear that isn't the case.

At all:

Crocked Wayne Rooney has had a good kicking from Sir Alex Ferguson as he angers fans by lording it in Dubai.

Fiery Fergie showed the star who is boss after his contract strop by putting his comeback on hold.

So it is, at best, a verbal kicking. But was it even that?

The article by Jerry Lawton - of 'Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury' fame - says:

Boss Sir Alex Ferguson, 68, yesterday revealed the star, currently living it up with wife Coleen in the world’s poshest hotel in Dubai, will not play for another month.

He said Rooney’s injured ankle had not improved because United’s medics had not been able to treat it while he has been soaking up the sunshine...

Club insiders believe fiery Fergie’s decision to put Roo’s comeback on ice is his way of showing the petulant star who is the real star at the club.

Ah, the anonymous 'insiders'. It must be true then.

Except, over in the Mail, there's a report on Ferguson's press conference yesterday that says:

...he is not therefore rushing Rooney back after another setback with his ankle in training. Ferguson told Rooney to take a family holiday...

The Guardian has more of this vicious 'kicking':

The initial diagnosis was that he would be out for three weeks, but the striker has been allowed to go on holiday with his wife, Coleen, to Dubai this week rather than having treatment.

"I think it will be a bit longer," Ferguson said. "He's away at the moment so there's no recovery. He's having a rest. He did his remedial work before he went. Thereafter rest is what he needs and we're quite happy with that."

The saga of a footballer going on holiday with his wife has taken up more column inches than you might have thought possible.

They've been on the front of the Star for four of the last five days. The Sun made them front page 'news' on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The Express (twice) and the Mail (once) have also put them on the front page.

But today, the Mail have done their usual thing - pretending to be shocked at the Rooneys' behaviour, while at the same time dispatching a reporter to Dubai to report on their every move. David Jones' article - which appears on pages 14-15 of today's print edition - is a work of staggering inanity:

At 11am, almost to the minute, Coleen would arrive by the pool, take off one of several ­expensive beach blouses and lay face down on her sun-lounger - always the same one.

Quite what Wayne was doing for the next hour and a quarter or so, we cannot know. At 12.15pm, ­however, he would trudge down to join his wife, and there they would remain for the next five hours...

Gripping stuff, isn't it?

Having spent the week fending off obsequious butlers proffering every imaginable extravagance, however, it’s easy to imagine how ­soccer’s most stinking-rich couple might begin another day in paradise.

‘Morning Wayne,’ chirps Coleen, admiring her ample new curves in the gold-framed mirror above a bed whose mattress has been specially adjusted to a softness of their liking.

Ah yes, her 'ample new curves'. The headline claims she has a 'suspiciously enhanced cleavage'. At one point, Jones says Coleen:

must surely have had her own breasts enlarged judging by before-and-after ­photos published this week

But later he's not so sure:

perhaps even a boob job

With a remarkable lack of self-awareness, he sneers:

If we believe one downmarket tabloid, they have even decided to renew the marriage vows.

'One downmarket tabloid' - not like the Mail, which is obviously above all this drivel. The Mail's website has 'only' 11 articles in five days about two young people sunbathing for five hours a day.

And the Mail would never take anything from such a 'downmarket tabloid' would it? Obviously, there's no link between the Star's front page on Wednesday:


And this Mail website article:



Back to Jones' scintillating prose:

Last Wednesday, I ­happened (by genuine coincidence) to be directed to a sun-lounger near a rock-shaded corner of the pool where the Rooneys were taking a dip, and couldn’t help but notice their discord.

Coleen ordered a pint of draught beer and a vodka and lemonade for Wayne, and they chatted sporadically. Or rather, she did - wrinkling her nose at him to make her point, as is her habit.

He just grunted and wallowed around on a waterproof striped cushion. Not once did they kiss or hug, or even drape an arm around one another.

So he was 'coincidentally' directed to a sun-lounger near the Rooneys, but didn't bother moving. He just stayed there. Watching them talk. Making notes about the food and drinks they ordered. Staring as they sunbathed for five hours.

He must be so proud he doesn't work for one of those 'downmarket' papers.

(Hat-tips to @couragerequired and @RopesToInfinity)

'We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication'

It seems the lawyers at Rockstar Games did get in touch with the Daily Star over their obviously untrue story (by Jerry Lawton) about a 'Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury' video game, based on the case of Raoul Moat.

Here's the very swift, and unusually long, apology, published today:

ROCKSTAR GAMES - GRAND THEFT AUTO - AN APOLOGY

On 21 July we published an article claiming that the video games company Rockstar Games were planning to release a version of their popular Grand Theft Auto video games series titled “Grand Theft Auto Rothbury”.

We also published what we claimed would be the cover of this game, solicited comments from a family member impacted by the recent tragedy and criticised Rockstar Games for their alleged plans.

We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication and did not contact Rockstar Games prior to publishing the story. We also did not question why a best selling and critically acclaimed fictional games series would choose to base one of their most popular games on this horrifying real crime event.

It is now accepted that there were never any plans by Rockstar Games to publish such a game and that the story was false. We apologise for publishing the story using a mock-up of the game cover, our own comments on the matter and soliciting critical comments from a grieving family member.

We unreservedly apologise to Rockstar Games and we have undertaken not to repeat the claims again. We have also agreed to pay them a substantial amount in damages which they are donating to charity.

The admission that they 'made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication' is a damning one.

But is anyone surprised?

(Hat-tip to the anonymous comment person here)

Mock Star Game

Another day, another tabloid reporting on some fictional 'fury'.

This time it was the Daily Star and a claim that a video game based on Raoul Moat was being planned, called 'Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury'.


Having seen the mocked-up cover somewhere, the Star seems to have believed it was actually going to be made.

The Star even appears to have a quote from the sister of Moat's ex-girlfriend, who says the game is 'beyond belief'.

Of course it is. So how did 'journalist' Jerry Lawton and the people at the Star even begin to think this was real?

By this afternoon, the Star had hastily removed the story but the folk at MCV had taken this screenshot of it.

Tim Ingham from CVG wonders if the removal of the article was because they realised (finally) it was nonsense, or whether Grand Theft Auto publisher Rockstar Games had had a word.