First the case was covered on the show Psychic Detective. The police were on the show vouching for Kay Rhea. I also believe it was on an episode of Larry King Live as well.
Unfortunately, the TV show Psychic Detectives is not a reliable source of information. It's a disturbing fact, but they lie. They do it to increase ratings.
The first sketch was found to be innacurate because the key witness admitted he was drunk at the time. This is why the new detective asked the Chief of police could he use Kay's photo on the news. The detective and the police Chief were on the show and they vouched for the psychic (but I guess they are both either stupid or lying). They showed both drawings and they were completely different. They even held up Kay's sketch next to the suspect when he was caught and you can see why the sketch was a direct hit as the skeptical police officer said.
I'd like to see this confirmed by the simple test of showing the two sketches and several photographs of the suspect to persons who do not know which sketch is which. I'd like to see if the sketches are really completely different, and see which one is closer.
The criminal admitted to killing her because she was about to "spill the beans" to his wife about their affair. Kay said they worked together in a big factory, they did. She said they were romantically involved, they were. She said he moved south to San Diego or San Bernadina, he did he moved to San Diego after the murder. You can go to Court TV's website and read the description of the show, it was called a portrait of the past. If you catch the reruns on weekends you may see the show
All these are reasonable guesses, or were already known. It was obvious that she was romantically involved with the killer. She was half-naked, and there were no signs of sexual violence. They had been seen together in a bar.
She worked in a factory. She could have been dating a stock broker, but the guess about dating a factory worker is the most likely hit, so that was Rhea's guess.
As I said before, you can only evaluate the quality of her guesses by looking at
all of her guesses. A vague claim like "he moved south" has a one in four chance of being true. Did she make three similarly vague claims that turned out to be false? Did she make other claims that were likely but false?
And she was not about to "spill the beans." He wanted to break off the affair and she threatened to tell his wife. (Of course he also claims to have no memory of the crime, which contradicts this claim.) That is close to spilling beans, but I would not choose the term spilling beans for threatening to call the wife during a violent fight. "Spilling the beans" sounds more like telling someone that they were committing fraud together or something like that.
At some point you have to be a freethinker instead of a closed minded skeptics. Some skeptics are dogmatic about their skepticism and they "believe" psychic ability is not possible no matter how illogical they may sound. This is just one case and I can post many more but this one case seems like a handful all by itself.
Skeptics are not close-minded. It's a contradiction in terms. Some people are dogmatic about their non-belief in psychic ability but they are not skeptics. Skeptics have looked at the overwhelming non-evidence for psychic ability and decided that it almost certainly does not exist, based on the evidence. So far this case appears to be poor evidence for psychic ability.
I'll check out the Court TV information, thanks for that.
.
