Found Deceased UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London - Clapham Common area, 3 March 2021 *Arrests* #13

[ClaireNC]

OP's link credits the MET but also does not attribute the statement to a spokesperson. It's too informal for me to take it seriously --didn't even name the pathologist. In my experience -- a high-profile case like this, I think they'd defer to the Coroner for all official statements and not make any statement about the cause of death pending the inquest. MOO

On Monday the Met said a postmortem on Everard’s body was inconclusive as to the cause of death, after the 33-year-old’s remains were found in woodland in Kent. An inquest into her death is expected to be opened and adjourned this week. A serving Met officer has been charged with her murder.

I agree. Too informal to be taken seriously. That’s why I asked the question.

 

[Wizzywig]

IMO if the accused perp alluded to being a police officer at all, I think he would have simply threatened SE with a weapon to get her into the car.

If he would risk exposing his identity to her, then I honestly don't think there was any way he planned to leave SE alive to identify him. At that point, a weapon such as a knife is surely the easiest way to make someone do what you want?

Even if the perp didn't allude to being in the police, unless he was wearing a mask, he would have been identifiable and would have known that.

It doesn't make sense to me that he ever planned to let her go, sadly. Why would he risk it?

I honestly think all this stuff about hitting her with the car, a rape going too far etc, is giving the perp too much credit.

Going to the lengths of getting a hire car etc seems to indicate planning. And that level of planning in no way suggests he wanted to leave himself open to being caught.

If this was his first murder, I honestly believe that he has been fantasizing and mentally planning this for a very long time. But It wouldn't surprise me if there were others before SE.

All IMO and MOO.

 

[Gibbo214]

OP's link credits the MET but also does not attribute the statement to a spokesperson. It's too informal for me to take it seriously --didn't even name the pathologist. In my experience -- a high-profile case like this, I think they'd defer to the Coroner for all official statements and not make any statement about the cause of death pending the inquest. MOO

On Monday the Met said a postmortem on Everard’s body was inconclusive as to the cause of death, after the 33-year-old’s remains were found in woodland in Kent. An inquest into her death is expected to be opened and adjourned this week. A serving Met officer has been charged with her murder.

Even without the Coroner, wouldn't the MET have a dedicated spokesperson for information?
Edited for spelling.

 

[Miss_French]

Something troubles me about the locations the police have been searching - the old family garage, the abandoned leisure/paintball centre, the sealed-up Ministry of Defence tunnels beneath the garage. Does anyone else find it odd that the alleged perp would have such ease of access to enter these locations years after they were abandoned? Presumably the garage wasn't owned by the family any more and was perhaps in the control of the council. And abandoned buildings are usually sealed up and locked for safety reasons if nothing else in my experience, not left open to the public.

I know there's footage on youtube of urban explorers accessing the garage. And I know there was a report that the tunnel search was actually a training exercise by the fire brigade. But it still doesn't sit quite right with me. I don't believe that the police WOULDN'T have searched those tunnels in the circumstances, since they passed beneath the garage. But I can believe that the MOD would put out a cover story about a training exercise to throw journalists off the scent since any suggestion that a crime had potentially been committed by an ex-Territorial Army soldier on off-limits Ministry of Defence property would be highly embarrassing for them.

The 'military tunnels' in Dover aren't current MOD property. There are ones from World War II, leading to bunkers from where coastal defences were planned and ammunition was stored. Some date back a few hundred years when the threat was naval attacks from France and Spain. They are run by the likes of the National Trust and Englush Heritage and, given that they are open as tourist attractions, it doesn't surprise me that a) the fire brigade train there (imagine trying to firefight and do a rescue down there) and b) some entrances to the tunnels don't have massive security.

 

[Seni]

In case nobody has said it yet, the inconclusive post-mortem means there will be a full inquest. A separate judicial process to determine SE’s death will now likely commence.

There have been no post mortem results. Inconclusive or otherwise.

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

There have been no post mortem results.

See below... this was what was reported.

Don’t think I’ve seen this mentioned yet and I wasn’t aware of it: apparently the Met announced today that a postmortum was “inconclusive as to the cause of death.”

Link: Priti Patel spoke to Met chief before Sarah Everard vigil broken up

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

The 'military tunnels' in Dover aren't current MOD property. There are ones from World War II, leading to bunkers from where coastal defences were planned and ammunition was stored. Some date back a few hundred years when the threat was naval attacks from France and Spain. They are run by the likes of the National Trust and Englush Heritage and, given that they are open as tourist attractions, it doesn't surprise me that a) the fire brigade train there (imagine trying to firefight and do a rescue down there) and b) some entrances to the tunnels don't have massive security.

THE TIMES reported that the tunnels were blocked by a metal gate with a new padlock.

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

On Monday the Met said a postmortem on Everard's body was inconclusive as to the cause of death, after the 33-year-old's remains were found in woodland in Kent. An inquest into her death is expected to be opened and adjourned this week.

Priti Patel spoke to Met chief before Sarah Everard vigil broken up

 

[Seattle1]

Even without the Coroner, wouldn't the MET have a dedicated spokesperson for information?
Edited for spelling.

Absolutely -- this is critical information for a case that's attracted global attention.

IMO, MET and the public would have been better served if no statement made than to state the pathologist exam was inconclusive. I'm making note this information attributed to the MET was a very small paragraph in an article dedicated to the Home Secretary of UK and her response to the protests on Saturday evening. MOO

 

[Joolz1975]

OP's link credits the MET but also does not attribute the statement to a spokesperson. It's too informal for me to take it seriously --didn't even name the pathologist. In my experience -- a high-profile case like this, I think they'd defer to the Coroner for all official statements and not make any statement about the cause of death pending the inquest. MOO

On Monday the Met said a postmortem on Everard’s body was inconclusive as to the cause of death, after the 33-year-old’s remains were found in woodland in Kent. An inquest into her death is expected to be opened and adjourned this week. A serving Met officer has been charged with her murder.

I wondered about this also because when he appeared in front of the magistrate they said no cause of death was recorded not that it was inconclusive.

I always thought the coroner dealt with cause of death rather than magistrate reveal it.

Just seems a little odd to me but seems to have been reported by a reputable source so maybe it is correct or maybe someone has incorrectly taken the 'no cause of death recored' as inconclusive.

Anyway it will all come out eventually and doubt it will be a problem for a jury in any case. It certainly wasn't in the Libby Sauire case .

 

[Seattle1]

I wondered about this also because when he appeared in front of the magistrate they said no cause of death was recorded not that it was inconclusive.

I always thought the coroner dealt with cause of death rather than magistrate reveal it.

You are correct. Coroners are independent judicial officers who investigate deaths reported to them. They are tasked to make whatever inquiries are necessary to find out the cause of death, this includes ordering a post-mortem examination, obtaining witness statements and medical records, or holding an inquest.

Coroners, post-mortems and inquests | nidirect

 

[Joolz1975]

You are correct. Coroners are independent judicial officers who investigate deaths reported to them. They are tasked to make whatever inquiries are necessary to find out the cause of death, this includes ordering a post-mortem examination, obtaining witness statements and medical records, or holding an inquest.

Coroners, post-mortems and inquests | nidirect

I am reserving judgement I think because the article does say the MET revealed monday that cause of death was inconclusive. Wondering if it was mentioned unofficially and someone has run with it as not seen any statements from the MET about it and you would have thought most media outlets would have reported it on it if an official statement was given.

 

[DetectiveSophia]

I truly hate writing this comment. It was less than a week between when SE went missing and was found. As far as we know she was found outside, in open air, at relatively temperate temperatures, partially protected by the builders bag, by my reckoning based on the minor facts we know decomposition wouldn't be the cause for not being able to ascertain cause of death- All IMO

Yes, I agree, that’s why I included ‘or similar’ - didn’t want to be too grisly. If they had an ‘intact’ body then after one week I’m pretty sure they would be able to determine the cause of death...

 

[Sherlockhames]

Does anyone know if strangulation would be obvious post mortum? I don't know much about these things.

Or suffocation perhaps? I was wondering how that would be forensically verified if it left few marks on the body (no water in lungs, no bruising from strangulation etc etc).

Might end up like the Libby Squire case where the specific cause of death was inconclusive (IIRC someone on PR’s jury wasn’t prepared to convict on the murder charge despite believing guilt on the rape charge).

I wonder whether any sexual element to this case has yet been established; or would this take longer?

Can any UK lawyers on here explain the likelihood or not of additional charges being added to the indictment if evidence to that effect is found? Or whether they might suspect it, but don’t put it in the initial indictment until they have evidence to this effect? Or would they stick with kidnap and murder (even if they suspect a rape narrative) on the basis that is life in prison anyway? Just interested as to how these decisions get made in practice.

 

[Gibbo214]

You are correct. Coroners are independent judicial officers who investigate deaths reported to them. They are tasked to make whatever inquiries are necessary to find out the cause of death, this includes ordering a post-mortem examination, obtaining witness statements and medical records, or holding an inquest.

Coroners, post-mortems and inquests | nidirect

Where I live, the Coroner can make a finding that a person can be charged based on the evidence.
Not convicted, but charged. That does not mean the person will be charged, it is still up to the
Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

[Joolz1975]

Or suffocation perhaps? I was wondering how that would be forensically verified if it left few marks on the body (no water in lungs, no bruising from strangulation etc etc).

Might end up like the Libby Squire case where the specific cause of death was inconclusive (IIRC someone on PR’s jury wasn’t prepared to convict on the murder charge despite believing guilt on the rape charge).

I wonder whether any sexual element to this case has yet been established; or would this take longer?

Can any UK lawyers on here explain the likelihood or not of additional charges being added to the indictment if evidence to that effect is found? Or whether they might suspect it, but don’t put it in the initial indictment until they have evidence to this effect? Or would they stick with kidnap and murder (even if they suspect a rape narrative) on the basis that is life in prison anyway? Just interested as to how these decisions get made in practice.

I think if they can prove rape they will absolutely try to add the charge. When it comes to sentencing a murder with a sexual element would receive a higher minimum term I think.

In Libby's case the rape and murder sentence was concurrent so Relowizc wont actually serve longer (kind of feels like he got the rape for free) however if he hadn't been found guilty of rape I think his minimum tariff would have been quite a bit less than 27 years so it does make a difference.

 

[Miss_French]

THE TIMES reported that the tunnels were blocked by a metal gate with a new padlock.

Yep, metal gates are pretty standard for historical sites with caves and tunnels.

We don't know who put the new lock on, though. Could have been one was taken off by police for quick access and replaced later.

 

[Urbanfox1]

Or suffocation perhaps? I was wondering how that would be forensically verified if it left few marks on the body (no water in lungs, no bruising from strangulation etc etc).

Might end up like the Libby Squire case where the specific cause of death was inconclusive (IIRC someone on PR’s jury wasn’t prepared to convict on the murder charge despite believing guilt on the rape charge).

I wonder whether any sexual element to this case has yet been established; or would this take longer?

Can any UK lawyers on here explain the likelihood or not of additional charges being added to the indictment if evidence to that effect is found? Or whether they might suspect it, but don’t put it in the initial indictment until they have evidence to this effect? Or would they stick with kidnap and murder (even if they suspect a rape narrative) on the basis that is life in prison anyway? Just interested as to how these decisions get made in practice.

this is JMO but obviously they must be working on the basis of hypothesis that the motive was sexual. They will want to be doing something with the IE offences and try them in the same proceedings. I can see that being the first area of legal argument because his defence I think would argue the offences should be dealt with separately. If they find evidence of sexual assault I believe they would arrest, charge and indict and I imagine make an application if necessary (even if that’s a formality) to have the offence heard at the same proceedings as the kidnap and murder. I don’t think they’d “let it go” on the basis of the murder charge as it’s not in the public interest, I think it will be seen as an aggravating factor and will have ongoing implications on any conviction about sentencing, later assessments about whether the accused remains a danger to society and treatment during prison sentence as a sex offender. JMO.
In short, I think it would depend on the evidence available as the CPS must believe there’s a realistic prospect of a conviction to make the decision to charge and if there’s no evidence at all then they would not be able to make that decision in good faith. I think likely however in those circumstances they’d put forward the hypothesis that the motive was sexual even if there was no evidence to charge with a sexual offence. IMO It would definitely be a thorny issue which might explain the level of search activity so that they can proceed with a charge of a sexual offence in connection with kidnap and murder. MOO

 

[Stella123]

this is JMO but obviously they must be working on the basis of hypothesis that the motive was sexual. They will want to be doing something with the IE offences and try them in the same proceedings. I can see that being the first area of legal argument because his defence I think would argue the offences should be dealt with separately. If they find evidence of sexual assault I believe they would arrest, charge and indict and I imagine make an application if necessary (even if that’s a formality) to have the offence heard at the same proceedings as the kidnap and murder. I don’t think they’d “let it go” on the basis of the murder charge as it’s not in the public interest, I think it will be seen as an aggravating factor and will have ongoing implications on any conviction about sentencing, later assessments about whether the accused remains a danger to society and treatment during prison sentence as a sex offender. JMO.
In short, I think it would depend on the evidence available as the CPS must believe there’s a realistic prospect of a conviction to make the decision to charge and if there’s no evidence at all then they would not be able to make that decision in good faith. I think likely however in those circumstances they’d put forward the hypothesis that the motive was sexual even if there was no evidence to charge with a sexual offence. IMO It would definitely be a thorny issue which might explain the level of search activity so that they can proceed with a charge of a sexual offence in connection with kidnap and murder. MOO

Morning (early morning for me anyway!). Seems to me that the current charge of kidnap and murder is to focus on the seriousness of that with no other charges at present and possibly because kidnap and murder they have clear evidence for. JMO, Speculation.

 

[Newthoughts]

Does anyone know if strangulation would be obvious post mortum? I don't know much about these things.

It would depend on the state the body was in. Quite difficult to see I think