Found Deceased UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London - Clapham Common area, 3 March 2021 *Arrests* #14

[MsBetsy]

It could be that forensic test results had recently come back and the rape was going to be added to the charges against him so he was pushed into deciding to confess . Given the amount of cctc evidence he could not deny the kidnap charge so has had to admit to that.

Yes, it seems like he's only admitted to what can be proven, and is waiting to see what evidence they have before admitting to the murder charge.

 

[JosieJo]

i think its very likely he has admitted killing her but they are waiting on outstanding reports before his plea.

 

[thatssoamy]

I think the only reason he's pleaded guilty is because he doesn't want anyone knowing the details of what he did. If it goes to trial all their evidence and everything they suspect is laid bare. It's easy for him once he gets to prison etc to say he was set up or to minimise what he did when nobody knows the details.

I'm glad for Sarah's family that they don't have to go through a trial, but at the same time I think they'd want to know exactly what happened to their loved one.

 

[Skigh]

i think its very likely he has admitted killing her but they are waiting on outstanding reports before his plea.

He has admitted to being responsible for her death. It is now it whether he will admit to the murder charge or enter a plea of manslaughter perhaps trying for diminished responsibility .

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

Why was his appearance in court under an order of the Contempt of Court Act?

 

[JennyJukes]

The rape may refer to another victim

I seem to remember he was accused of indecent exposure a few days before Sarah went missing, as per:
Everything we know about the police officer arrested for Sarah Everard 'murder'
"On February 28, three days before Ms Everard disappeared, the Met Police received an allegation that Couzens had exposed himself in front of a woman at a fast food restaurant in south London.

Despite the complaint, it is understood he continued to work.

The police watchdog is now investigating the alleged incident and how Couzens' colleagues handled the report."

I guess something else could have happened between then and Sarah going missing. If it was a second victim, would that be heard at the same time as the offences against Sarah?

 

[nothinonyou]

Very strange to have a guilty plea in cases like this, especially so early on and especially to a rape charge. Anyone who commits a sexual crime will always admit to any assault or murder charge firstly but will often deny venomously that anything sexual happened. They don't want that label attached to them for life and especially not in a prison

 

[Skigh]

I seem to remember he was accused of indecent exposure a few days before Sarah went missing, as per:
Everything we know about the police officer arrested for Sarah Everard 'murder'
"On February 28, three days before Ms Everard disappeared, the Met Police received an allegation that Couzens had exposed himself in front of a woman at a fast food restaurant in south London.

Despite the complaint, it is understood he continued to work.

The police watchdog is now investigating the alleged incident and how Couzens' colleagues handled the report."

I guess something else could have happened between then and Sarah going missing. If it was a second victim, would that be heard at the same time as the offences against Sarah?

If there was a second victim it would be a separate case and he would be charged for it and there would be a separate trial.

 

[Skigh]

Very strange to have a guilty plea in cases like this, especially so early on and especially to a rape charge. Anyone who commits a sexual crime will always admit to any assault or murder charge firstly but will often deny venomously that anything sexual happened. They don't want that label attached to them for life and especially not in a prison

As he has admitted it ,I am lead to presume it is because there is irrefutable evidence to prove he raped Sarah.

 

[nothinonyou]

As he has admitted I am lead to presume it is because there is irrefutable evidence to prove he raped Sarah.

they were a very long time identifying a cause of death so lord knows what that monster did

 

[Lunabear]

I was listening to Nick Ferrari on LBC this morning when he broke the news and he said "I obviously can't say too much...but some of the background to that story, that I've heard, is truly shocking. " Poor girl, it was obviously very, very grim what happened to her.

 

[asyousay]

I was listening to Nick Ferrari on LBC this morning when he broke the news and he said "I obviously can't say too much...but some of the background to that story, that I've heard, is truly shocking. " Poor girl, it was obviously very, very grim what happened to her.

This was also said via a journalist back when he had his first court appearance. It was unfortunately a horrific crime by the sounds of it and maybe that’s why he is confessing to save his children the pain and humiliation of a long trial.


I am just relieved for the family’s sake they won’t be dragged though months of a trial.

 

[Nikynoo]

Why was his appearance in court under an order of the Contempt of Court Act?

I have no idea. @Alyce ?

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

I have no idea.

Because when I first saw it last night I immediately thought they were challenging something that had been reported in the press:

"The primary function of CCA 1981 is to protect the integrity of active court proceedings. It prohibits the media from publishing information that will prejudice ongoing legal cases and in particular trials before juries. A strict liability rule is introduced by CCA 1981."

 

[Lindsay Lou Who]

Other news outlets may have different wording, but if you look at this one from the BBC, what they have said about what he has admitted to is actually quite ambiguous and suggests - perhaps - to me that he has admitted to an additional charge of raping a second victim sometime between 2 and 10 March. I've snipped and bolded for clarity but haven't excluded anything that could change the sense. It is definitely unclear though, as 'second charge' may mean 'subsequent to the first charge which is kidnap' or may mean second charge of rape. If the latter, it would explain the issue with the dates.

Sarah Everard: Wayne Couzens admits rape and kidnap

"Appearing at the Old Bailey via video-link, PC Wayne Couzens, of Deal, pleaded guilty both to kidnap and rape.

"The court heard he also accepted responsibility for Ms Everard's death but did not enter a plea on the charge of murder.

"He pleaded guilty to kidnapping Ms Everard "unlawfully and by force or fraud" on 3 March.

"He also pleaded guilty to a second charge of rape between 2 and 10 March."

JMO

I noticed this immediately too. Either he potentially raped a second person that came forward or could he have raped Sarah on more than one occasion over a number of days between kidnapping and murdering her?

MOO

 

[asyousay]

I noticed this immediately too. Either he potentially raped a second person that came forward or could he have raped Sarah on more than one occasion over a number of days between kidnapping and murdering her?

MOO

Which would make sense as why is this crime so horrific if he raped her and killed her straight away?

It would still be a terrible crime but the way it’s been implied there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

 

[SpursGyal]

I really wasn’t expecting a guilty plea.

At least Sarah’s family are spared a long trial with all the heartbreaking details.

 

[Lola68]

If he doesn't plead guilty to murder and the medical reports do not support a plea of manslaughter on grounds of insanity it will still go to trial

 

[Skigh]

I really wasn’t expecting a guilty plea.

At least Sarah’s family are spared a long trial with all the heartbreaking details.

There still could be a trial if he pleads guilty to manslaughter rather than pleads guilty to murder.

 

[tedtink]

Other news outlets may have different wording, but if you look at this one from the BBC, what they have said about what he has admitted to is actually quite ambiguous and suggests - perhaps - to me that he has admitted to an additional charge of raping a second victim sometime between 2 and 10 March. I've snipped and bolded for clarity but haven't excluded anything that could change the sense. It is definitely unclear though, as 'second charge' may mean 'subsequent to the first charge which is kidnap' or may mean second charge of rape. If the latter, it would explain the issue with the dates.

Sarah Everard: Wayne Couzens admits rape and kidnap

"Appearing at the Old Bailey via video-link, PC Wayne Couzens, of Deal, pleaded guilty both to kidnap and rape.

"The court heard he also accepted responsibility for Ms Everard's death but did not enter a plea on the charge of murder.

"He pleaded guilty to kidnapping Ms Everard "unlawfully and by force or fraud" on 3 March.

"He also pleaded guilty to a second charge of rape between 2 and 10 March."

JMO

Perhaps he held her captive and admitted to raping her twice within that time period.
Would that be 2 rape charges in law ?