JOURNALISTS, TV & MEDIA
All cases featured on this page and elsewhere have been lodged with police as stated. All have at least one independent media witness, employed on a prominent newspaper at the time of each case is able to verify key dates when Carol Everett's identification drawings and information were produced and received by police. In all cases this happened before police released a video/photo fit picture of their own, if any. No one can realistically expect a photographic equivalent of the suspect from Carol as the images are derived from thin air. Artistic licence has to be allowed for as well. ( remember that portrait of the queen, looked nothing much like her and she actually posed for that.) As long as the main features are recognisable then its ok for most. And as for hair, we all know that can change in a minute with a pair of scissors so forget that one. Same with a beard, pair of glasses etc. If you know anyone who can do better, ok, then you go first. I guess the skeptics also can master almost any such achievement. Other similar cold case identifications are lodged with other area police forces, featuring unsolved murder cases that are waiting for answers. But lets be fair, some cases are not easy to crack by normal means, sometimes that little extra may be needed.
POLICE to MEDIA CO-OPERATION, or NOT
The problem we find, after any 'big' crime case is that police departments usually go into some form of damage limitation mode after useless enquiries. Often completely contradicting earlier 'official' statements in an effort to make things apparently add up. An exercise designed to ensure that no one can so easily recall or criticise long winded and sometime really expensive lines of enquiry that get no results unless by luck or accident. Newspapers and news agencies too will print and work any old quote from officialdom, even though it may be a bit suspect or even contradictory.
It's a fact that the only time police will really speak and work with the media is if they want something published. Most other times as almost any journalist will tell you its basically a stone wall. A media afraid of crossing the line and asking a too direct question or having the balls to point out the obvious without the backing of the slightest squeak of officialdom to blame if it goes wrong. Or more recently being banned unconstitutionally from reporting.
An Example.
Sandra Parkinson murder case..
Probably, in 85% of cases I would guess, particularly murder cases not committed by a relative, associate or friend, the murderer is'nt located and charged. If police do actually catch the murderer it is usually through having a really lucky break along the way or someone spotted the killer accurately. More often than not they don't catch them at all. Nothing much like CSI here if the murderer is a complete unknown or a random killer, and where no DNA is on file, they are hard to find. Remember Carol works her cases with absolutely nothing.
This is basically an example of what you are up against with police co-operation. Many more cases follow a similar pattern.
Take the Sandra Parkinson case. Right up to the last minute police had no idea who the murderer was until he hung himself and left a confession note. About carols work, Police admitted to journalists at an early case press conference, and this was published in The Sunday Independent too. They were quoted, 'we always took Carols Everett's work seriously and they would be looking at the ID drawings she had done for the murderer in the Sandra Parkinson case', and that they were aware of her accuracy in other past cases. But, not in this case ie the Sandra Parkinson (waitress murder) murder case. After police had spent like £750000 ($1.27million) chasing all over the UK and abroad interviewing people, still not getting anywhere, how could they admit that some psychic, ie Carol Everett, in Devon had pretty accurately drawn the portrait of the killer just a few days after the murder. Also how could they remind people that the portrait of the killer had even been published in Scotland, and also in England with express permission from their own police press office to the newspaper concerned it was ok by them to publish the picture Carol had drawn. Carols picture was also printed in the Sunday People, so the picture had been verified by millions of people. The People came out the day before police released the official name of the killer and his real picture.
People at the time guessed it would have been easy for the police to show a few people the picture Carol produced early on, to see if it was recognized from day one. Strangely enough police never did have a photo fit picture of their own for the media during that whole case, though it was announced three times on separate dates in National News that they had one coming out at any time from witnesses. It never arrived because of conflict with first hand witnesses descriptions, as with the Washington Sniper Carol was right all along, from day one.
If you go back to that case now, Sandra Parkinson was a huge UK case at the time, also go back to police efforts, even with direct police quotes about Carols previous work from the time in front of you, you will be hard pressed to get any police officer in the UK to admit a psychics work was ever used. Or in a lot of Carols police cases that she actually beat them hands down with descriptions very early on.
As most journalists know, normally if you get police press offices directly, (where people change constantly to promote official vagueness), along with the facts that leave an embarrassing mark with no reasonable way of deniability. The official line is to play down any psychic involvement to an absolute minimum, understandably to prevent every wannabe psychic sending in useless information.
When Carol started doing intuitive medical diagnosis for people she really worried herself if doctors did not agree with what she was getting at straight away or at least very early in a case she had diagnosed. But it sometimes took a year or more for doctors to catch up. Now with years of proven cases and often knowing the work can be more accurate than some doctors anyway. Knowing that a few top Harley street doctors now actually want to know what she has to say about 'impossible' to diagnose cases, who then go on and act on her recommendations after research, it helps some. Carol doesn't bother worrying anymore, because those original doctors usually agreed with her findings in the end.
So its the same with the crime cases, if you cant get police to go along with a story and actually help. Or you can be real sure it all happened and it can be verified through other independent witnesses of impeccable character etc it would make much more interesting TV or journalism to do the stories anyway, and include the fact that police had all the relevant information, or the FBI in the Washington as in the sniper case. And actually had the means to perhaps solve a case early and maybe save lives. I very much doubt there will be many denials when its the truth, particularly with any of Carols cases anyway. But we don't chase the police for praise, we have much better things to do. But if journalism had more guts and came off the fence some then I guess there are a lot of other real interesting stories out there. Stories just waiting on hold for somebody, or even a nobody to squeak out after being cornered in 'officialdom' to say, oh yes, oops, sorry we do actually keep proper records, and do remember how it could have helped.
Kano Baker. |
