GUILTY UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London, Clapham Common area, 3 Mar 2021 *Awaiting Sentencing*, #15

[Marantz4250b]

It was mainly unnamed ex-pupils who were quoted, and I always suspected that they were mostly fictional and the comments were made up by the tabloid hacks. There was a certain similarity of style about it all. I noticed that named individuals who were quoted spoke quite highly of Mr Jefferies.

I think I mentioned many pages back that my ex was a newspaper journalist. The one thing that she always said was that reputable papers never quoted unnamed sources. The only time a statement would be given as anonymous (or with a fake name) would be if it were a requirement of law or there were very strong reasons to do so if someone were to be potentially put in danger or suchlike. People making essentially trivial comments like these would never be quoted as anonymous sources as there is absolutely no journalistic reason to do so.

I have first-hand experience of this as I asked her to do a story on a local issue where I work but she said that her paper wouldn't unless I was prepared to be named - which I wasn't.

Any unnamed "source" in a paper has almost certainly been invented by the journalist who wrote the piece.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It was mainly unnamed ex-pupils who were quoted, and I always suspected that they were mostly fictional and the comments were made up by the tabloid hacks. There was a certain similarity of style about it all. I noticed that named individuals who were quoted spoke quite highly of Mr Jefferies.

I think I mentioned many pages back that my ex was a newspaper journalist. The one thing that she always said was that reputable papers never quoted unnamed sources. The only time a statement would be given as anonymous (or with a fake name) would be if it were a requirement of law or there were very strong reasons to do so if someone were to be potentially put in danger or suchlike. People making essentially trivial comments like these would never be quoted as anonymous sources as there is absolutely no journalistic reason to do so.

I have first-hand experience of this as I asked her to do a story on a local issue where I work but she said that her paper wouldn't unless I was prepared to be named - which I wasn't.

Any unnamed "source" in a paper has almost certainly been invented by the journalist who wrote the piece.

I don't think WC has PTSD, split-personality, or any other form of mental illness.

He knew what he was doing, and he enjoyed it too.

The more he got away with it, the more smug he became, and the more it spurred him on.

His disregard for women and human life is appalling and I'm only surprised he could hide it from his family for as long as he did!

I entirely agree here.

 

[Marantz4250b]

And Rebecca, she has a thread on here

Rebecca - Missing People

Although tbh l think this was his first murder. I wonder what caused his behaviour to escalate.

I think it was his first murder too. It's was pretty incompetent, when you actually think about it, and his "explanation" was just plain ludicrous. I cannot believe that he has got away with similar previously.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It is the brother in law who references WC now working with a therapist on a ‘multiple personality disorder’.

Yes. We have to remember that the BIL's first language is not English. A huge amount can be "lost in translation" of a single word.

But, when you're a tabloid rag you'll publish anything to increase the click-rate!

 

[Marantz4250b]

It’s possible his defence counsel has instructed a therapist/psychiatrist who will diagnose DID or other. Not a question of bring ‘duped’ in that context.

The thing is though that none of these, as far s I can see, will do anything to mitigate a conviction for murder. Indeed, they cannot, as if they could then his plea would have been Not guilty by reason of insanity. For that though he needs to demonstrate that he did not comprehend the nature and quality of his acts[/i] in short, being unable to understand that what he did was wrong, yet he clearly and obviously knows that it was wrong by his lies after the fact and the huge level of pre-planning, etc, etc.

He's entered guilty pleas to kidnap, rape and murder. No medical condition he subsequently claims to have had at the time will have any effect on his sentencing.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I would hope he was undergoing regular medicals as standard, for his employer. I read somewhere that he had failed a medical but I think that was many years back when he was working at Dungeness. I'd wondered whether he failed due to physical issues or mental ones, but we may never know.

The truth is that employer medicals don't always catch everything. Some of them are not robust at all, especially if they are an "update medical" with comprehensive ones only required every few years. (I don't know what the Met Police requires.) I work in a profession where medicals are required from time to time and have seen how people are able to get those to pass even where there is an issue that should be reported (I do not recommend or condone this!).

He was with the Civil Nuclear Police; the CNP is by far and away the most stringent and most elite non-military force in the UK. The criteria to enter, and remain in it, is huge. I believe that even their rules of engagement are different to the regular police - essentially the same as on an active front in a war zone, I think. I'd be interested to know what medical assessments he allegedly failed during his time there. Was that why he applied to transfer to the MET?

Given his obvious narcissistic traits I'd be surprised if he wasn't constantly bragging to his MET firearms colleagues about that fact that he was in the CNP and the fact that he got to play with much better toys than they ever would; the CNP have several of these

. I was on a range a few years ago when they were on the next range over, just out of sight, but we heard these things going off literally all day! Bering in mind that these burn ammo at a rate of 100 rounds each second and the thing was going on and off for eight hours or so (money no object) this sort of thing would have given him (in his mind) massive "one-upmanship" over his fellow firearms officers.

 

[Marantz4250b]

His lawyer is actually the one who claimed WC is remorseful. The only words we're told that WC has said are "I deserve it". IMO there is a massive difference between being remorseful, and acknowledging the consequence of an action. He was a police officer. Actions are deemed right or wrong, and wrong actions incur a consequence. All WC has done is acknowledge he did a thing that is deemed wrong and thus he is being given a consequence. There's zero remorse in any words that we've been told he has said. I will kindly acknowledge there may be more that he has said and expressed which could show true remorse, but I see no remorse in the words we know he has said.

To be pedantic; his lawyer hasn't claimed anything. His counsel is not there to give their opinion on their client, they put to the court what their client has said. WC has claimed he is remorseful and his QC has said that on his behalf.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I agree that his poor wife must be coming to terms with a horrendous shock that her husband was not what he seemed. The DID would be a powerful protective measure - especially when trying to explain it to his kids. 'Daddy didn't know what he was doing' sounds way better than 'daddy is a murdering rapist'.

I'm not sure I buy any of his defences mental illness claims at all. I think he knew what he was doing he just wasn't particularly bright in the enacting of it

The fact he manufactured the Romanian gangster story. Which could be plausible if you didn't think too hard. He wasn't bright enough (or empathetic enough) to see that it wouldn't wash.

The fact he hired a car showing a degree of planning. Just not bright enough to anticipate bus cams without which that car would be difficult to link to Sarah and hence him.

The fact he held down a responsible job and had colleagues who were ok working with him despite the fact he'd be fully armed (tho the creepiness was noted it was not taken seriously and it's within the bounds of 'banter' that sadly women have put up with for decades). If I thought there was anything dodgy about a colleague I'm not sure I'd join them on an armed patrol

The attempts to destroy the body.

I think everything he's doing now - including pleading guilty - is to protect himself. He's a cop - he'll probably fare better in a secure mental health unit than a prison. Pleasing guilty will mean the less will come about what happened. I'm sure he appreciates the more horrific the details the greater the risks from other prisoners

He's just a murdering rapist'. He's followed the path of many other murdering rapists. Now he's protecting himself

Absolutely this!!

 

[annpats]

Hmm, interesting bits of info on the CNC. (Civil Nuclear Constabulary).

The CNC does not guard the UK's nuclear weapons; this role is the responsibility of the British Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence Police.

Whilst the CNC are a police force, this acknowledgement would suggest the role of a CNC police officer is that of providing armed security, rather than primarily being concerned with law enforcement.

This role is also evidenced in the number of arrests made by the force annually compared with a territorial police force of a similar number of police officers.

In 2016, CNC officers made 24 arrests. This compares to Dorset Police, a force with a similar number of officers who made 7,460 arrests annually in the latest annual figures.


Civil Nuclear Constabulary - Wikipedia

 

[Marantz4250b]

Regarding him being remorseful. I think that's standard defence speak for 'don't give me the maximum sentence'. My aunt's carer stole her life savings. She was remorseful in court. I did jury service. The defendant was remorseful. Every person I know that has done jury service - the defendants were remorseful. Every case I've read about - defendants were remorseful

Exactly! I the same way that every politician or celebrity who's caught shagging their secretary or in a hotel room with loads of hookers and a bowl of coke is remorseful! They aren't remotely remorseful for their actions, they're remorseful about being caught. I'd have far more respect for these people if they just said yep I'm a total arsehole, it was entirely my fault and I shouldn't have done it but they never do.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Hmm, interesting bits of info on the CNC. (Civil Nuclear Constabulary).

The CNC does not guard the UK's nuclear weapons; this role is the responsibility of the British Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence Police.

Whilst the CNC are a police force, this acknowledgement would suggest the role of a CNC police officer is that of providing armed security, rather than primarily being concerned with law enforcement.

This role is also evidenced in the number of arrests made by the force annually compared with a territorial police force of a similar number of police officers.

In 2016, CNC officers made 24 arrests. This compares to Dorset Police, a force with a similar number of officers who made 7,460 arrests annually in the latest annual figures.


Civil Nuclear Constabulary - Wikipedia

Yes, the CNC (I'd incorrectly referred to them as CNP) are tasked only with guarding the UK's civil nuclear installations, such as power stations, and the transport of nuclear fuel and waste - which is why they have the Dillon Mini-Guns for maritime anti-pirate defence on the vessels they operate for nuclear transport.

 

[Italia]

The thing is though that none of these, as far s I can see, will do anything to mitigate a conviction for murder. Indeed, they cannot, as if they could then his plea would have been Not guilty by reason of insanity. For that though he needs to demonstrate that he did not comprehend the nature and quality of his acts[/i] in short, being unable to understand that what he did was wrong, yet he clearly and obviously knows that it was wrong by his lies after the fact and the huge level of pre-planning, etc, etc.

He's entered guilty pleas to kidnap, rape and murder. No medical condition he subsequently claims to have had at the time will have any effect on his sentencing.

Exactly - it has not been used as a defence, the mens rea of intent stands as he pled guilty to murder, it can only mitigate sentencing slightly or possibly where he ends up.

 

[Italia]

Yes. We have to remember that the BIL's first language is not English. A huge amount can be "lost in translation" of a single word.

But, when you're a tabloid rag you'll publish anything to increase the click-rate!

From the Times

 

[Marantz4250b]

From the Times

The question remains; why is a reputable paper like The Times publishing unsourced comments?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Exactly - it has not been used as a defence, the mens rea of intent stands as he pled guilty to murder, it can only mitigate sentencing slightly or possibly where he ends up.

It's highly unlikely to mitigate sentencing, to be totally honest. He may think it will but it really won't. The facts of this case just totally eradicate any mitigating ones, as far as I can see. It's just so bizarre, unusual and horrific that I think that whatever he says - even if that is a full disclosure of everything which took pace, by the minute, with nothing hidden, that it's just not going to affect his sentence. The fact is that he did it, there is no avoiding that. He has admitted the fact and there are a multitude of aggravating factors. He's getting life with a whole life order, or something north of 40 years before parole, and rightly so.

 

[Gemmie]

The question remains; why is a reputable paper like The Times publishing unsourced comments?

Is this what you mean by unsourced?

The Times sometimes agrees not to identify people who provide information for our articles. Under our guidelines, anonymous sources should be used only for information that we think is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way.

Besides the reporter, at least one editor must know the identity of the source. Use of anonymous sources in any story must be approved by a high-ranking editor, usually a department head like the International editor or the Washington bureau chief, or their deputies.

More of the NYT's explanation here: How The Times Uses Anonymous Sources (Published 2018)

 

[Marantz4250b]

Is this what you mean by unsourced?

The Times sometimes agrees not to identify people who provide information for our articles. Under our guidelines, anonymous sources should be used only for information that we think is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way.

Besides the reporter, at least one editor must know the identity of the source. Use of anonymous sources in any story must be approved by a high-ranking editor, usually a department head like the International editor or the Washington bureau chief, or their deputies.

More of the NYT's explanation here: How The Times Uses Anonymous Sources (Published 2018)

As I say; my ex was a journalist; the information provided here (which is no more than "tittle-tattle") is just a total nothing, to be fair. What possible and honourable, legitimate, journalistic reason could there be for not naming the sources? IF there were such reasons then they would have been stated in the preface to the article.

The Times or otherwise - these statements are rubbish.

The Times is entirely free to state otherwise; they merely need say that they are protecting the identity of their sources. We await their statement to that effect.

 

[Beans]

I’m confused. Which statements were not attributed to named sources?

 

[mrjitty]

It is actually common to use 'unnamed sources" in mainstream broadsheets, same as in the US.

Anyone who follows politics or football is used to seeing stories attributed to "no 10 sources" or "club sources" - especially where the identity of the spokesperson is not critical to the story.

Just because a story is not attributed, does not mean the source is invented.

The practice is not without controversy of course, but the idea that all reputable papers don't use unnamed sources is not correct.

A separate issue is tabloid journalists trumping up anonymous sources, but such papers tend to report nonsense even from named sources.

 

[mrjitty]

I’m confused. Which statements were not attributed to named sources?

IIRC the comments from colleagues were not attributed.

But that is hardly surprising, and also common.