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

[LucyRocket]

Mopping up a few observations from reading today

The judge said that WC had travelled to London several times in the previous weeks planning this. That's the first and only mention I've heard of that. Again, the MET must have been very thorough in their investigations to have found this evidence.

I don't think he'll give any further details about what happened. He comes across as a narcissist. A narcissist actually does feel shame for what they are and what they do, but with no responsibility. They will project the blame for their behaviour onto the world for treating them badly. Therefore, they can't be honest. They also need to be in control, and mostly in control of others' opinion of them. So he's never going to want anyone to know any details that they might judge him on. Especially now he has a whole life term, it serves no purpose to him, he won't gain anything from it. In contrast, a sociopath enjoys the torment of others, and will enjoy embellishing their accomplishments.

With my view of him showing narcissistic traits, I'm not surprised that there are contrasting reports of him as a person. Look at the interview of him in his home. He looks like quite a pathetic, weak, apologetic individual. Depending on your relationship and interactions with a person like that, you will either view them as a quiet, polite, family man, or an obnoxious, creepy lech.

And lastly, @Whitehall 1212 , it was a four wheel drive vehicle, not 4 vehicles that did make me giggle

 

[Gemmie]

Much longer version of the interview at WC's home here: Sarah Everard: Police bodycam footage shows how Wayne Couzens spun desperate web of lies | Daily Mail Online

He seems very anxious and nervous in this one. The story about the gang seems even more ridiculous in watching this.

Ugh. I literally cringed at 4:35 when he said they told him "You done good" after he brought Sarah to them. Even though it's obviously a lie... just the fact he choose words that phrased his actions really bothers me. Just ugh.

 

[LucyRocket]

He also threw sth out of the window, right?
Or maybe Im mixing it with another case?

It was this case, but in the reporting yesterday it said the officers knocked on the door, took him by the arms and led him to the lounge where they questioned him, quietly and without incident. So I think those early reports must have been wrong

 

[Stella123]

I do not think he will reveal what he did. It would be something so horrific that he will not want to admit to having done it.

He also keeps power by staying silent.

Yes that is probably right. And in that case he has no remorse or care for her family's feelings. They can only imagine the worst. And it is the worst whatever happened, but the uncertainty of what happened when must be horrific.

He either spotted the unmarked car outside and thought to reset his phone. Or maybe he was tipped off by someone - seems too coincidental that they enter just after the reset! The telegraph reported that officers waited outside for 2 hours before entering the property.
Remember the user (badger?) who lived opposite the house who talked about the ambulance being outside in the days before along with the 4x4 undercover car being parked up on the street.

Maybe he just watched the news. By then early evening the Poynders Road crime scene was on the news. If he saw that, and saw officers in that location, even with his v dim brain he must have surmised they knew it was the scene as a result of some info (cctv/witness evidence) so perhaps realised the net might be closing so needed to remove gps evidence of his movements. And possibly more horrific information that would possibly have incriminated him had it fallen into evidence. I think the police were maybe waiting to see what he was going to do in response to that scene being made public. And when he made no movements, they then got the go ahead as a result for more formal confirmation of some things such that they could arrest him under suspicion of kidnap.[/QUOTE]

I’m also now wondering if it was the other way round. They had been tracking his movements by his phone, waiting to see if he would come out and lead them somewhere and then him factory resetting his phone meant they lost track on it and it triggered them to move in on the house.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

A copper stopping you you on the street wouldn't be able to, or wouldn't have cared to, investigate an individual's covid compliance. Because of my unavoidable contact with very vulnerable people, I stuck to them rigidly. But friends of mine didn't, and they were every bit as lovely and law abiding as Sarah. You just have to say you stayed in the garden, they're not going to check, or that they're your bubble, they're not going to check ahhhh well actually you were at your boyfriend's house 2 days ago. If she'd have told him I was only in a friend's garden, or my friend's in my bubble, I think it would have been very easy for him to say okay well I just need you to come to the station so we can log your details then you'll be on your way. Handcuffing then is extreme, but I'd have allowed him to do it. Trusted that's his job. I'm always freaked out at the thought of being handcuffed, that kind of physical restriction really gives me a panic attack, so that would freak me out more than a police officer taking me to the station to be honest!

I think it would be very useful for people to have a general awareness of how the police operate in terms of stopping someone in the street and stopping a motor vehicle.

1. When they can stop you in the street
2. Whether you have to remain or answer any questions
3. Why they may arrest you and what they have to tell you if you are being arrested
4. When they can handcuff you
5. What identification looks like and what documents they need to give you
6. When they can stop a car
7. What information you are required to give as a driver or sometimes the passenger

@LucyRocket in your example, a simple breach of a covid regulation would mean you would either be given a verbal warning or possibly given a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) or reported for the offence and summonsed to court later. Being given an FPN or being reported requires the police to be satisfied that you have given the correct name, date of birth, address etc. They will do this with the help of any ID you may have and/or doing various systems checks by radio or on their own vehicle tablet etc.

If they cannot confirm your identity or the offence is more serious and needs prompt and effective investigation etc then you will most likely be arrested, read your rights (the caution) if not already done and taken to the nearest police station with a custody suite.

The use of handcuffs is a use of force and had to be justified by the officer to the custody sergeant when arriving at the custody suite as is any other use of force. If you are compliant and not a flight risk, aggressive, wanted etc then you are most unlikely to be handcuffed.

If handcuffs are applied the hands will most likely be at the front in a stack position (one wrist above the other about 10cm apart). Only if an arrested person presents a risk when handcuffed at the front are the hands cuffed behind the back in a stack position or hands back-to-back. This will only generally be if you want to fight the world and his brother, when your legs may also be strapped and possibly a spit hood placed over the head, if you are spitting or threatening to spit.

So the way in which you are processed depends on the offence you have been stopped for and the way in which you conduct yourself. If an officer is arresting you for a minor offence when you have confirmed your details or they are trying to restrain you unnecessarily or looking to apply handcuffs then let the warning bells ring.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

The whole life tariff is the only just sentence for this crime in my mind.
So many aggravating factors apply that it is difficult to pin point just one.
1. WC was a police officer in a position of trust in our society, he abused that position to deceive, kidnap, rape, murder and desecrate Sarah.
2. He murdered Sarah whilst in commission of not just one but two serious crimes i.e kidnap and rape.
3. He caused unimaginable physical and mental suffering to Sarah during that 80 mile journey and he inflicted terror upon her by raping her as she struggled for her life.
4. His premeditated actions as evidenced through purchases showed his intentions all along were to kidnap and rape a woman, he also must have know that he would not be letting his victim live to report his crimes to police.
Add to that his deplorable actions following the murder
5. He was cold and callous after murdering Sarah, showing no remorse even going as far as to take his own children to play near where he’d left Sarah’s body.
6. He had no respect for Sarah even in death as he returned to burn her body so her family could never see her face again.
7. He concocted a ludicrous lie about human traffickers, placed blame on others and still refuses to tell Sarah’s family the truth about what happened between her abduction and ultimate murder.
And of course he had long been a danger to women, with twisted fantasies and escalating depravity, he crossed the line from fantasy to reality. He has no self control and if he were ever released he would continue to pose a high risk to society.
WC is beyond rehabilitation, he is a warped individual who hid behind his police uniform. He has brought shame to the entire police force, abused the trust of his family, friends and colleagues. He has forever changed the way many women will feel if approached by an officer whilst alone. It is not only the trust of those who knew him he has betrayed but everyone in society.

The whole life tariff was not given because of public outrage, but because he ticks almost every box for an offender who should never be released.

 

[seasideForest]

You could only have one household as your bubble though. Hers would have been with her boyfriend or family.
She could have visited her friend as long as they stayed outside, unlikely on a cold winter night.
One does wonder how he would have dealt with someone who had stayed firmly within the rules.

I'm sure he would have dealt just the same because IMO he wasn't looking for Covid rule-breakers, he was looking for a young woman alone so he could do his indescribably awful deeds. Even if SE was not quite following the rules (we don't know for sure) nothing on earth gave WC any excuse to do what he did.
MOO JMO

 

[Marysmith]

He also threw sth out of the window, right?
Or maybe Im mixing it with another case?

I thought that he threw her phone out the window into a body of water?

 

[Newthoughts]

I really think that he never actually considered CCTV in passing buses and cars capturing the EXACT moment he stopped and took her and hence how quickly they tracked him, unless he wanted to be caught - but given how he tried to cover his tracks with thought out effort, I don't believe he did.

I agree totally. There is no fixed CCTV footage it's all from dashcams. So I also think he didn't expect to be seen at all. If those dashcams hadn't picked him up I honestly think she'd still be a missing person case. If they hadn't had that there would be no reason at all to assume she'd ever been taken out of the city.

 

[tallmansix]

Policy change from Scotland Yard after Couzens case
The Metropolitan Police have announced they will not deploy plain clothes officers on their own, following the sentencing of Wayne Couzens.

Deputy Commissioner Sir Stephen House said: "We will not operate plain clothes officers on their own. If we do use them, they will be in pairs."

He said there will be "occasions" where that is not possible - such as when a pair of officers are split up - and noted that off-duty officers not in uniform "put themselves on duty" when they come across an incident.

Sarah Everard murder: 'I'm so sorry' - Cressida Dick says the 'precious bond of trust with police has been damaged'

I don't think this goes far enough, I think the public should be given a very clear policy that they will never be asked to enter an unmarked police car, regardless of whether there are one or more plain clothes police officers.

I can imagine the "occasions" where plain clothes police need to make an arrest alone will still be common, but ensuring that a member of the public isn't bundled into a car would add another level of protection against this without preventing the police from doing their work.

I also think the public should be made more aware of their rights - for example being handcuffed can be considered as an assault even when used on somebody under arrest, and therefore all the usual ground for justification and proportionate use of force should be widely known so we can challenge that - clearly in this false arrest there was zero justification for hand cuffs - there would have been no indications such as violence or risk of escape that justified them and if the public were better informed of their rights it might have triggered alarm bells before it turned into a kidnap.

 

[Dotta]

I thought that he threw her phone out the window into a body of water?

He threw sth out of his home window when Police came in.
And, of course, he also threw S's phone to the river.
Oh, and he also threw punches while at school - as bullies usually do.

 

[Stella123]

I hope that if that happened now, you would insist on ringing the station.

I have been stopped quite a few times by female police officers (two of them) while driving late at night (to and from university some distance to where I was living). Apparently they have a quota and seems I was the only car out on that road late at night! Same two officers each time. Obviously checking for drink drivers but only asked to see licence etc (or take it to police station). Now I got quite annoyed and told them they shouldn’t keep stopping the same car and made a complaint to the police station. Thing is I felt more confident with female police officers. If they had been male, and a bit heavy, I would have felt more intimidated and not dare to challenge or ask to call someone of asked to get in a car. I wasn’t actually asked to get in a car though. But even so. A lot depends on the manner of the officer - if they were friendly (so you didn’t feel intimidated) or if they came on heavy.

 

[Stella123]

There have been several comments on this thread which indicate they can be used to help sexual performance.

Some of them were also found in his car along with lubricating gel, a knife, plastic gloves and an unused condom.

 

[OrangeRhyme]

I agree totally. There is no fixed CCTV footage it's all from dashcams. So I also think he didn't expect to be seen at all. If those dashcams hadn't picked him up I honestly think she'd still be a missing person case. If they hadn't had that there would be no reason at all to assume she'd ever been taken out of the city.

Do you think if the bus camera hadn't picked up the number plate, they'd never have found him? Or maybe they could've tracked the car to Dover?

It's unfathomable that a police officer wouldn't know he'd be picked up by cameras. It's like he wanted to be caught whilst paradoxically going to efforts to evade detection.

If you wanted to abduct someone, it would make more sense to do it in the countryside rather than a city

 

[LucyRocket]

I think it would be very useful for people to have a general awareness of how the police operate in terms of stopping someone in the street and stopping a motor vehicle.

1. When they can stop you in the street
2. Whether you have to remain or answer any questions
3. Why they may arrest you and what they have to tell you if you are being arrested
4. When they can handcuff you
5. What identification looks like and what documents they need to give you
6. When they can stop a car
7. What information you are required to give as a driver or sometimes the passenger

@LucyRocket in your example, a simple breach of a covid regulation would mean you would either be given a verbal warning or possibly given a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) or reported for the offence and summonsed to court later. Being given an FPN or being reported requires the police to be satisfied that you have given the correct name, date of birth, address etc. They will do this with the help of any ID you may have and/or doing various systems checks by radio or on their own vehicle tablet etc.

If they cannot confirm your identity or the offence is more serious and needs prompt and effective investigation etc then you will most likely be arrested, read your rights (the caution) if not already done and taken to the nearest police station with a custody suite.

The use of handcuffs is a use of force and had to be justified by the officer to the custody sergeant when arriving at the custody suite as is any other use of force. If you are compliant and not a flight risk, aggressive, wanted etc then you are most unlikely to be handcuffed.

If handcuffs are applied the hands will most likely be at the front in a stack position (one wrist above the other about 10cm apart). Only if an arrested person presents a risk when handcuffed at the front are the hands cuffed behind the back in a stack position or hands back-to-back. This will only generally be if you want to fight the world and his brother, when you legs may also be strapped and possibly a spit hood placed over the head, if you are spitting or threatening to spit.

So the way in which you are processed depends on the offence you have been stopped for and the way in which you conduct yourself. If an officer is arresting you for a minor offence when you have confirmed your details or they are trying to restrain you unnecessarily or looking to apply handcuffs then let the warning bells ring.

This makes sense. But he wasn't acting in his duty. And I wouldn't have known or questioned the extreme measures and I doubt Sarah would have either.

 

[elliefant]

The media showed photos of police searching the gutters of his house. I think it was probably 2+2 makes 4 after that, with the narrative that he must have thrown something out of the window. There is no way he would have told police he had done that so it is probably just speculation. Prob by the DM

 

[Whitehall 1212]

A method also used for docking sheep tails.
If only..................

MOO IMO

Mopping up a few observations from reading today

The judge said that WC had travelled to London several times in the previous weeks planning this. That's the first and only mention I've heard of that. Again, the MET must have been very thorough in their investigations to have found this evidence.

I don't think he'll give any further details about what happened. He comes across as a narcissist. A narcissist actually does feel shame for what they are and what they do, but with no responsibility. They will project the blame for their behaviour onto the world for treating them badly. Therefore, they can't be honest. They also need to be in control, and mostly in control of others' opinion of them. So he's never going to want anyone to know any details that they might judge him on. Especially now he has a whole life term, it serves no purpose to him, he won't gain anything from it. In contrast, a sociopath enjoys the torment of others, and will enjoy embellishing their accomplishments.

With my view of him showing narcissistic traits, I'm not surprised that there are contrasting reports of him as a person. Look at the interview of him in his home. He looks like quite a pathetic, weak, apologetic individual. Depending on your relationship and interactions with a person like that, you will either view them as a quiet, polite, family man, or an obnoxious, creepy lech.

And lastly, @Whitehall 1212 , it was a four wheel drive vehicle, not 4 vehicles that did make me giggle

It's good to know I am oh so fallible still - that's what 32 hours without sleep does - sleep well tonight

 

[Cherwell]

There is no issue as to whether SE broke the covid rules.
We don't even know what WC said to her that evening or who her supposed bubble was so it's pointless speculating IMO.
It was WC who took advantage of so called Covid rules, that was spelled out in Court today.
HE took advantage.

Yes, of course.
The point - which was made by the prosecution - was that Sarah would almost certainly have been less compliant had she been confident that she hadn't bent the rules.
What I was wondering was how he might have proceeded with someone who was indisputably entitled to be out - a key worker on their way home from work, for example.

 

[LucyRocket]

The whole life tariff is the only just sentence for this crime in my mind.
So many aggravating factors apply that it is difficult to pin point just one.
1. WC was a police officer in a position of trust in our society, he abused that position to deceive, kidnap, rape, murder and desecrate Sarah.
2. He murdered Sarah whilst in commission of not just one but two serious crimes i.e kidnap and rape.
3. He caused unimaginable physical and mental suffering to Sarah during that 80 mile journey and he inflicted terror upon her by raping her as she struggled for her life.
4. His premeditated actions as evidenced through purchases showed his intentions all along were to kidnap and rape a woman, he also must have know that he would not be letting his victim live to report his crimes to police.
Add to that his deplorable actions following the murder
5. He was cold and callous after murdering Sarah, showing no remorse even going as far as to take his own children to play near where he’d left Sarah’s body.
6. He had no respect for Sarah even in death as he returned to burn her body so her family could never see her face again.
7. He concocted a ludicrous lie about human traffickers, placed blame on others and still refuses to tell Sarah’s family the truth about what happened between her abduction and ultimate murder.
And of course he had long been a danger to women, with twisted fantasies and escalating depravity, he crossed the line from fantasy to reality. He has no self control and if he were ever released he would continue to pose a high risk to society.
WC is beyond rehabilitation, he is a warped individual who hid behind his police uniform. He has brought shame to the entire police force, abused the trust of his family, friends and colleagues. He has forever changed the way many women will feel if approached by an officer whilst alone. It is not only the trust of those who knew him he has betrayed but everyone in society.

The whole life tariff was not given because of public outrage, but because he ticks almost every box for an offender who should never be released.

Very well written, and I agree totally.

On why he visited the site with his family, I think he was checking there was no activity there. I'm not sure on this, because he wasn't showing any anxiety in any of his other actions apart from not going to work. But it's kind of like you know when you're not sure if you'd left the hob on? He had to go to the area to check everything was still as he'd left it and there was no activity there. Put his mind at rest.

 

[Stella123]

This makes sense. But he wasn't acting in his duty. And I wouldn't have known or questioned the extreme measures and I doubt Sarah would have either.

Police clamping down on Covid breaches had been widely publicised (and even criticised for being too heavy) so she may have not seen it as out of the ordinary to be handcuffed. Also I think in the court comments it was said the Judge and/or CPS said they think she must have been threatened.