GUILTY UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London, Clapham Common area, 3 Mar 2021 *Life sentence* #16

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Visibly shaking, did he really not expect this ?

Complete coward. Like a dog with its tail between its legs. A pathetic bully in every way. Happy to violently abuse the weaker and more vulnerable. Reduced to weeping and shaking when confronted by someone his own sex. Couldn’t even make eye contact with her family when they asked, just sat there shaking. This guy is a woman hating, steroid using, 5’5 on a good day loser. May he rot in hell when he dies.
 
Ok the Daily Mail is being even sillier than usual.
Anyone who has been on WS for a while surely knows by now that burning is one of the dumbest ways to get rid of a body? It suggests an amateur who never did a murder before

My thoughts exactly on reading that.

"‘What was unusual – and suggests his experience – was his disposal of the body. ‘Burning someone’s remains is a good way to get rid of it. All of that suggests this is experienced behaviour.'"

Absolute nonsense. It's impossible to destroy a body by burning without access to special facilities.
 
Met Police did not 'close ranks' to protect Wayne Couzens, says judge

The judge who sentenced Sarah Everard’s killer Wayne Couzens said the Metropolitan Police did not "attempt to close ranks to protect one of their own".

Couzens was a serving diplomatic protection officer with the force when he used a "false arrest" to abduct Ms Everard before raping and killing her.

In his sentencing remarks, Lord Justice Fulford said the case had been "the most impressive police investigation that I have encountered in the 30 years I have been sitting as a part-time and full-time judge".

"The speed with which the evidence leading to the arrest of the defendant was secured is highly notable, as has been the painstaking reconstruction of these events using electronic material along with more old-fashioned methods of policing," he added.

"It cannot be suggested in my view that the Metropolitan Police, even for a moment, attempted to close ranks to protect one of their own.

"Instead, remorselessly, efficiently and impartially the investigating officers followed all the available leads, resulting in an overwhelming case against the accused."

Who receives whole-life prison sentences?

Whole-life orders are the most severe punishment available in the UK criminal justice system for those who commit the most serious crimes.

Sarah Everard's killer Wayne Couzens has joined a string of some of the country's most dangerous offenders who are expected to die behind bars.

There are 60 criminals serving whole life orders, according to government figures to the end of June.

They will never be considered for release, unless there are exceptional compassionate grounds to warrant it.

Milly Dowler's killer Levi Bellfield is thought to be the only criminal in UK legal history to be serving two whole life orders - for her murder, the killings of Marsha McDonnell and Amelie Delagrange as well as the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy.

Other notorious criminals serving whole life orders include: Gloucester serial killer Rose West, Michael Adebolajo, one of Fusilier Lee Rigby's killers; Mark Bridger, who murdered five-year-old April Jones in Wales; neo-Nazi Thomas Mair who killed MP Jo Cox; Grindr serial killer Stephen Port; and most recently the Reading terror attacker Khairi Saadallah, who murdered three men in a park.

Sarah Everard's killer sentenced live: 'Warped' Wayne Couzens hangs head and shakes as judge delivers whole-life sentence
 
It's just so wrongheaded. He burnt the body in a fridge, so a witness saw it, then had to start again?

Yeah - highly experienced.

Like why use the fridge?

Like the bus CCTV/Dashcam CCTV, he did not figure anyone would be in the area maybe? I assumed that he used a fridge to keep the fire contained in a small area rather than it spreading further and definitely attracting attention. Also, as what happened, someone saw the flame, but did not report it at the time - maybe as it was small and a known dumping ground, whereas a fire burning wildly in the area might have been cause to call the fire brigade.

Whatever his reason for using the fridge, he could have done similar crimes before and got away with it not because he was 'smart' at covering his tracks (he obviously is not), but it is the brazenness of it that implies it might not have been an one-off / flipping overnight scenario - that is what is being suggested I think.
 
A really good point on remorse. If WC is genuinely sorry, then he will on reflection accept his punishment is appropriate given all the facts and not bother the legal system again, and keep quiet in prison so we never have to hear of him again until he dies…

We’ll see.
He will only be able to appeal the sentence - and no right minded lawyer would do that after reading the sentencing remarks. WC is not sorry. He would have assisted the investigation and given a full confession if he was sorry. I suspect thought, theat the sentence would have been the same.
 
My thoughts exactly on reading that.

"‘What was unusual – and suggests his experience – was his disposal of the body. ‘Burning someone’s remains is a good way to get rid of it. All of that suggests this is experienced behaviour.'"

Absolute nonsense. It's impossible to destroy a body by burning without access to special facilities.

Yep

I mean my specialist area of useless information from a decade misspent on these cases (for my law abiding life style) is How to stage a crime scene :p

Answer: don't bother

The professional dumps the body, best in water. Nothing links you to the victim. Staging creates a narrative which points back to the killer.

Next best, bury it way out in the back of beyond somewhere - but with nothing that links you to it. Especially not items you brought at a big box retailer the morning after the murder.

Noob level. Burning/dismemberment.
 
It's just so wrongheaded. He burnt the body in a fridge, so a witness saw it, then had to start again?

Yeah - highly experienced.

Like why use the fridge?
I actually thought that was a good idea. Its a contained space - though I suppose the fridge could have exploded (doesn't it has some sort of gas in it?). But then again, I have never needed to dispose of a body.
 
I am glad that the sentence reflected the crime and that Lord Justice Fulford showed Wayne Couzens no mercy. It will never bring Sarah back or change what has happened but I hope it is a small comfort to Sarah family, friends, colleagues etc that the only time WC will leave prison is in a box.
 
I also don’t know what it is but I can’t help shake the feeling that this won’t be the last we hear of Wayne Couzens and his perverseness. I don’t think he was a serial killer but I would not be surprised if he ends up linked to other cases against women e.g more flashing etc.
 
But in the days to come, I must say I want to know more. I want his other crimes to be investigated and prosecuted - and in the case of some of them, I'm sure, uncovered for the first time. And I would really like to know more about how he became this person, with a wife and a daughter of his own, but nevertheless capable of viewing women as disposable objects, whether that's Sarah or Romanian prostitutes in Folkestone motels.

I wonder if they will look at which other countries he has spent time in, for example where his wife's family live/are from - she worked in Switzerland when they met (not sure if they met there) and she was from Ukraine. I remember his mother-in-law defending him (before she knew the details & evidence obviously) so he must have been well liked and respected there, also to just think of the prostitutes/gang scenario and being 'forced' kidnap girls for them, and the DM article saying the confidence of driving so far with a woman handcuffed in his car could imply he has done that previously...chilling to think what could come out long term. Thankfully he is now going to be locked up for life!
 
Yep

I mean my specialist area of useless information from a decade misspent on these cases (for my law abiding life style) is How to stage a crime scene :p

Answer: don't bother

The professional dumps the body, best in water. Nothing links you to the victim. Staging creates a narrative which points back to the killer.

Next best, bury it way out in the back of beyond somewhere - but with nothing that links you to it. Especially not items you brought at a big box retailer the morning after the murder.

Noob level. Burning/dismemberment.

To be fair, Professor David Wilson is a bit of a wally. I have no idea why he's the go-to man for so many British crime documentaries.
 
I agree, as I said in my original post. He’s that sort of person and not to be critical of lawyers (I am one!) but they will argue any case to the last limit they can sometimes.

For a man of Couzens’s age the point may even be academic as to whether it’s 40 years or whole life but I am offended by the thought of him being able to enjoy even say a final two or three years of freedom if he lives until his 80s. Wrong on principle.

Edited to add: for a man of Couzens’ age I would find the appeal all the more the waste of time and all concerned should have the decency to skip it but Couzens has no dignity. He only pleaded guilty hoping he would get a sentence in the 30-40 years range and perhaps have ten years out at the end. If he is still after that… For someone in his early 20s like Jamie Reynolds with Georgia Williams I at least saw the point. And he didn’t perform a fake arrest. If Couzens tries it, it will be offensive but he probably will.

I'm also a barrister and I expect nothing less of Jim Sturman, it's his job to appeal and it's probably something he's been thinking about for a while now but I'm sure he doesn't expect the appeal app to get anywhere. WC should probably not instruct his QC to appeal but like you said, he has no shame so I don't see him doing that. It's Jim's job to tell his client about the legal avenues available to him after sentence. I've also heard good things about Tom Little, a colleague of mine knows him and says he's wonderfully methodical. He's done a great job.
 
I actually thought that was a good idea. Its a contained space - though I suppose the fridge could have exploded (doesn't it has some sort of gas in it?). But then again, I have never needed to dispose of a body.

We have a lot of bonfires, so the best to get a lot of heat is a base of logs that you burn down to glowing hot then put a more fuel on top. The fridge is just molten plastic crap that can't burn. And a petrol fire will just burn quick, but then there is no fuel to keep it going. Petrol is a waste of time basically, unless your idea is just to destroy forensics.

But even then you won't burn the bones away.
 
I'm also a barrister and I expect nothing less of Jim Sturman, it's his job to appeal and it's probably something he's been thinking about for a while now but I'm sure he doesn't expect the appeal app to get anywhere. WC should probably not instruct his QC to appeal but like you said, he has no shame so I don't see him doing that. It's Jim's job to tell his client about the legal avenues available to him after sentence. I've also heard good things about Tom Little, a colleague of mine knows him and says he's wonderfully methodical. He's done a great job.

Thanks for this post.

The defence has a thankless task in this case. They are just doing their job, and properly raising factors in their client interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
162
Guests online
3,256
Total visitors
3,418

Forum statistics

Threads
602,576
Messages
18,142,793
Members
231,439
Latest member
MsIris1127
Back
Top