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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tesni

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
94
Reaction score
513
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sarah Everard: Met PC Wayne Couzens charged with murder

A serving Met Police officer has been charged with the kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard, who disappeared as she walked home in south London.

The 33-year-old's body was found in woodland in Kent more than a week after she was last spotted on 3 March.

Wayne Couzens, 48, will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Saturday charged with her murder.

[...]
 
This case is now under sub-judice.

Under sub-judice, the following is not allowed:

Any non compliance with an Order of the court
Anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestions or direct accusations that the accused is either guilty or innocent (i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer", it has to be "the accused", the "alleged killer" or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges/lawyers, any officer of the Court)
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence.

Please do not post anything that violates the above principles.

Thank you.

ETA for reference: UK Contempt of Court Act 1981
 
There are far too many posts violating sub-judice in this discussion.

Members can NOT make posts insinuating the accused's guilt. Before you post, ask yourself "If a juror was reading here, could what I am about to post influence that juror?" If the answer is yes, it is a violation of sub-judice. So, posts to the effect of "well, the accused is going to be put away for life" or "he/she/the accused must have done this type of thing before" etc are off limits because they are insinuating guilt.

Also off limits are discussion about a possible IE incident. Whether or not an accused person is charged or has been charged with something prior or the current charges, it cannot be discussed here. Jurors are not to be privy to any prior history or suggestions of prior crimes. Jurors must hold deliberations on the current charges only without influence of any prior dealings with the law.

WS does not have the staff to moderate this discussion 24 hours a day. If we continue to have difficulty in controlling the discussion as it relates to violations of sub-judice or too many off topic posts (i.e. discussion of journalistic integrity), this discussion will have to be closed until trial and only the Media *NO DISCUSSION* thread will remain open.

As previously stated, discussion about the vigil, protests, politics is off limits just because it led to too much off topic discussion that is not directly related to the crime itself. While such discussion may have been allowed in other threads, this decision is thread specific because it was derailing the thread.

Any questions, please private message a Mod or Admin for clarification.

Thanks.
 
Stella123 said:
That’s very weird. Telling someone he buried his Dad there when his Dad is still alive. Makes you wonder who actually is buried there if there’s a wood cross.
Click to expand...

I think this says it all:
WAYNE Couzens claimed he “buried” his dad near where Sarah Everard’s body was found when his father was at home safe and well.

The suspect made the bizarre comment to Kieron Shepherd who saw Couzens “hacking away” with an axe in a copse three days after Sarah vanished.

You'd think he'd say it was his dog or cat, not his dad. That obviously would raise eyebrows (even if his dad had died).

Wayne Couzens told witness he buried his dad near where Sarah's body was found
 
Last edited by a moderator:
5 things we still don't know after Wayne Couzens admits murdering Sarah Everard
rbbm.
''The Old Bailey also heard on Friday that investigations are still ongoing to analyse scientific evidence relating to Couzens’ own car, into which he transferred Sarah from the hire car he used to kidnap her.

Tom Little QC, prosecuting, said: “That may seek to establish where it was that Sarah Everard was raped and where she was murdered.”

''Exactly when Sarah was killed remains a mystery, too.
The formal charge that Couzens has pleaded guilty to is the murder of Sarah between March 2 and March 10 earlier this year.
However, enquiries have established a number of suspicious purchases in the days after her disappearance.''

Two days after Ms Everard was last seen, Couzens was caught on CCTV buying two green rubble bags at B&Q in Dover.

He went on to order tarpaulin and a bungee cargo net for delivery on March 7.''
 
Gemmie said:
I think this says it all:
WAYNE Couzens claimed he “buried” his dad near where Sarah Everard’s body was found when his father was at home safe and well.

The murderer made the bizarre comment to Kieron Shepherd who saw Couzens “hacking away” with an axe in a copse three days after Sarah vanished.

You'd think he'd say it was his dog or cat, not his dad. That obviously would raise eyebrows (even if his dad had died).

Wayne Couzens told witness he buried his dad near where Sarah's body was found
Click to expand...

Kieron Shepherd: “At one point curiosity got the better of me, and I started walking over to have a nose but something came over me and I stopped in my tracks
“I turned away and thought better of it.”

Fortunate for KS that he listened to his gut instinct and stayed away, or he might've been the next victim.
 
tayaway said:
Kieron Shepherd: “At one point curiosity got the better of me, and I started walking over to have a nose but something came over me and I stopped in my tracks
“I turned away and thought better of it.”

Fortunate for KS that he listened to his gut instinct and stayed away, or he might've been the next victim.
Click to expand...

Smart man. He listened to his gut feelings. I find it interesting what I've read where people are getting 'creepy vibes' from WC. I think more people need to pay attention to those when they arise. Don't dismiss them with 'Nah, it's nothing'. It very well COULD be something. I'm from the Better safe than sorry camp. If it's nothing well, no harm, right? But if it's something.... you might not get a second chance to determining that.
 
Sillybilly said:
There are far too many posts violating sub-judice in this discussion.

Members can NOT make posts insinuating the accused's guilt. Before you post, ask yourself "If a juror was reading here, could what I am about to post influence that juror?" If the answer is yes, it is a violation of sub-judice. So, posts to the effect of "well, the accused is going to be put away for life" or "he/she/the accused must have done this type of thing before" etc are off limits because they are insinuating guilt.

Also off limits are discussion about a possible IE incident. Whether or not an accused person is charged or has been charged with something prior or the current charges, it cannot be discussed here. Jurors are not to be privy to any prior history or suggestions of prior crimes. Jurors must hold deliberations on the current charges only without influence of any prior dealings with the law.

WS does not have the staff to moderate this discussion 24 hours a day. If we continue to have difficulty in controlling the discussion as it relates to violations of sub-judice or too many off topic posts (i.e. discussion of journalistic integrity), this discussion will have to be closed until trial and only the Media *NO DISCUSSION* thread will remain open.

As previously stated, discussion about the vigil, protests, politics is off limits just because it led to too much off topic discussion that is not directly related to the crime itself. While such discussion may have been allowed in other threads, this decision is thread specific because it was derailing the thread.

Any questions, please private message a Mod or Admin for clarification.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I mistakenly thought that a guilty plea meant some of this didn’t apply.

The above is important and deserves saying twice. Let’s not see this thead have the be closed again!
 
London Police Officer Pleads Guilty to Murdering Sarah Everard

July 9, 2021

The officer, Wayne Couzens, 48, had already pleaded guilty last month to kidnapping and raping Ms. Everard, a marketing executive who went missing on March 3 as she was walking home from a friend’s house in South London. Her body was found a week later in a wooded area in southeast England, several miles from Mr. Couzens’ house.

Mr. Couzens is expected to be sentenced in September.

[..]

Mr. Couzens served in an elite unit of the Metropolitan Police assigned to the protection of parliamentary and diplomatic premises. The revelation that an officer charged with protecting London’s population had turned out to be a kidnapper, rapist and murderer shook the city’s police forces, which have faced several scandals in recent years.

Mr. Couzens kidnapped Ms. Everard in the Clapham neighborhood of South London at around 9:30 p.m. on March 3, driving her away from London in a car he had rented, according to the prosecution. He had told investigators that after kidnapping Ms. Everard, he handed her over to other men outside London, uninjured and still alive.

Carolyn Oakley, a specialist prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service, said that Mr. Couzens had lied to the police when he was arrested and that he had refused to comment since.

“We still do not know what drove him to commit this appalling crime against a stranger,” Ms. Oakley said in a statement after the hearing.

[..]

Ms. Dick said that she met with Ms. Everard’s family on Friday and presented her apologies. “All of us in the Met are sickened, angered and devastated by this man’s truly dreadful crimes,” Ms. Dick said in a statement. “Everyone in policing feels betrayed.”
 
arrogantcat said:
I mistakenly thought that a guilty plea meant some of this didn’t apply.
Click to expand...
<rsbm>

I think we'll need a UK lawyer to weigh in on this, but in the meantime, here's my take on it. I am not a lawyer, and this is strictly my opinion at this point.

IMO, even with a guilty plea, that plea can possibly be changed at certain times within the court process.
A judge may wish to ascertain the circumstances that led to the accused entering such a plea (i.e. was there coercion, is it a false guilty plea, was there a plea agreement that a judge might find unsatisfactory, etc) . A judge may refuse a guilty plea based on legal reasons. I think sub judice will apply right up to the time of the plea being accepted by the court and possibly remain in effect up until the time of conviction or possibly even sentencing.
 
Gemmie said:
Smart man. He listened to his gut feelings. I find it interesting what I've read where people are getting 'creepy vibes' from WC. I think more people need to pay attention to those when they arise. Don't dismiss them with 'Nah, it's nothing'. It very well COULD be something. I'm from the Better safe than sorry camp. If it's nothing well, no harm, right? But if it's something.... you might not get a second chance to determining that.
Click to expand...

I know someone who's son is friends with a firearms cop with a force in a different part of the country. This guy attended a course at the Met a while back and met him. Described him an an "odd-ball". Admittedly, this is all after the fact and it's very easy for someone to say that but, none the less!
 
arrogantcat said:
I mistakenly thought that a guilty plea meant some of this didn’t apply.

The above is important and deserves saying twice. Let’s not see this thead have the be closed again!
Click to expand...

Isn't that just a standard piece of wording that they put at the start of each thread continuation? Anyway, saying he's guilty can't violate that it is not "insinuating" guilt. He's admitted it!
 
Sillybilly said:
<rsbm>

I think we'll need a UK lawyer to weigh in on this, but in the meantime, here's my take on it. I am not a lawyer, and this is strictly my opinion at this point.

IMO, even with a guilty plea, that plea can possibly be changed at certain times within the court process.
A judge may wish to ascertain the circumstances that led to the accused entering such a plea (i.e. was there coercion, is it a false guilty plea, was there a plea agreement that a judge might find unsatisfactory, etc) . A judge may refuse a guilty plea based on legal reasons. I think sub judice will apply right up to the time of the plea being accepted by the court and possibly remain in effect up until the time of conviction or possibly even sentencing.
Click to expand...

The judge hasn't refused it though. He's adjourned the case for sentencing. If there was the slightest doubt that this guy was innocent his barrister would have told him to plead not guilty and of they thought he was pleading guilty in error would be duty bound to dismiss themselves from the case.

You cannot insinuate something against someone if they have said it themselves.
 
foxed said:
JMO, but no newspapers or MSM seem to be observing sub-judice rules any more. I am pretty sure that they no longer apply as the guilty plea has now been officially accepted by the court. So the thread rules may need to be updated.
Click to expand...

They are it's just that, as you say, they are not relevant. The rules are there to protect the integrity of the trial. It is, however, perfectly lawful to report the actual words spoken in court without fear of criminal or civil penalty. The caveat to that is if the court makes an order banning publication.

WC has said "guilty". There is no legal bar to reporting that what-so-ever. If the judge had had the slightest issue with that he would have refused the plea and made an order that it not be reported.
 
Marantz4250b said:
Isn't that just a standard piece of wording that they put at the start of each thread continuation? Anyway, saying he's guilty can't violate that it is not "insinuating" guilt. He's admitted it!
Click to expand...

No, which is why I wanted to flag people’s attention to it. Read through what’s written - it’s specifically addressing things being said in the past thread.

I have no take on the legalities, so will just follow what the mods say until told otherwise!
 
arrogantcat said:
No, which is why I wanted to flag people’s attention to it. Read through what’s written - it’s specifically addressing things being said in the past thread.

I have no take on the legalities, so will just follow what the mods say until told otherwise!
Click to expand...

Yes, having read it properly, I see what you mean. It's not an insinuation to quote what the accused has said though. It falls foul of no legal rules at all. Indeed, every news outlet on the planet is saying it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 88 more.
Total: 532 (members: 89, guests: 443)

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
443
Total visitors
532
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,048
Messages
18,233,567
Members
234,275
Latest member
MaestraV
Back
Top