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

[Nikynoo]

I am wondering, if results of his medical examination, will have him placed into an institution, avoiding any further LE questioning, therefore avoiding a trial etc.

The MSM reports stated that WC appeared by videolink from Belmarsh, so I guess not.

 

[Nikynoo]

Given her body was found on the 10th, you would think that if that were the rationale the wording would be "between March 2 and 11".

Otherwise, his defence team might have leeway to argue that raping her was the very last thing he did and was not "between" the dates alleged at all. (For example.)

JMO

But, was he not already in custody when the body was located?

 

[mrjitty]

But, was he not already in custody when the body was located?

Yes - I think they know she didn't on the 10th

 

[proclee]

Could it not be that he’s claiming he raped her/tied her up (or something equally gross) and left her somewhere but he’s claiming she was alive when he left her then and when he went back she was dead/he hadn’t had the chance to go back?
(I don’t believe that this is what happened but could be something he is claiming). This may have already been discounted/not feasible but just something which crossed my mind

 

[Sherlockhames]

Is it not also likely that given the state her body was found in on the morning (? Unclear from media reports exactly when it was found) that she had to have died at some point prior to then, rather than at some point from midnight to some time during the 10th. Also, as he was the last person to see her and he was in custody from the 9th, for it to have been him she had to have died before the 10th.

 

[mrjitty]

One suspects it is difficult for him to deny the physical facts of the crimes.

We can surmise defence counsel is pondering a manslaughter plea of some kind - so I my guess is intention is going to be the key to this trial (if we have one)

 

[SBops]

But, intention should encompass what a reasonable person should know what may lead to death. Like saying, 'I left her there for ten days with wounds but I had no intention of killing her'.

 

[mrjitty]

But, intention should encompass what a reasonable person should know what may lead to death. Like saying, 'I left her there for ten days with wounds but I had no intention of killing her'.

Generally for murder, you have to actually foresee the possibility of death - so you must have known

The reasonable person standard relates to negligence/manslaughter

But we don't know the basis for the defence yet. Is he claiming he killed her by accident? Or are they saying he lacked the mental competency....

 

[Sarahlou]

I really really hope he doesn't go down the ridiculous 'I killed her by accident' route. He should fully confess and spare her family a trial.

 

[SBops]

Generally for murder, you have to actually foresee the possibility of death - so you must have known

The reasonable person standard relates to negligence/manslaughter

But we don't know the basis for the defence yet. Is he claiming he killed her by accident? Or are they saying he lacked the mental competency....

I have to disagree. Unless you are incompetent you have to know what injuries, left alone without medical treatment would foresee, not just the possibility but the surety of death.

 

[heartandsoul]

Very glad to see this thread back!

I am dreading finding out more details of this crime, from the little we do know it sounds incredibly horrific. Poor Sarah.

 

[mrjitty]

I have to disagree. Unless you are incompetent you have to know what injuries, left alone without medical treatment would foresee, not just the possibility but the surety of death.

What I am saying is that the standard for murder by indirect intention is a subjective test not objective. So the accused must have known the risk of death - we infer it, based on the circumstances.

What a reasonable person would have known is an objective test, and is effectively the standard for negligence. So you didn't foresee death but you should have.

Many countries have codified parts of these rules. So where you inflict GBH and are reckless about whether death could ensue, you are guilty of murder.

 

[mrjitty]

I really really hope he doesn't go down the ridiculous 'I killed her by accident' route. He should fully confess and spare her family a trial.

Me too - we see that nonsense time and again

 

[infinit]

Generally for murder, you have to actually foresee the possibility of death - so you must have known

The reasonable person standard relates to negligence/manslaughter

But we don't know the basis for the defence yet. Is he claiming he killed her by accident? Or are they saying he lacked the mental competency....

I just find it unusual if insanity was an intended defence that he'd plead guilty to rape and kidnapping as he's basically admitted to having the mental capacity when he took her.

 

[mrjitty]

I just find it unusual if insanity was an intended defence that he'd plead guilty to rape and kidnapping as he's basically admitted to having the mental capacity when he took her.

It is really hard to know because we are just guessing at his defence.

Diminished Responsibility is a partial defence to murder, reducing it to Manslaughter, so that could explain why he has plead to the other 2 charges but has not yet been arraigned on the murder charge. They've been given extra time.

If he were considering a "she died by accident" type defence, i think he would have been arraigned.

The other possibility I thought of, is that because determination of death took so long, maybe the defence has been given extra time to plead on that one.... or maybe the prosecution itself is not ready to table it?

 

[MissUnderstood]

I’m thinking he is going to say she was accidentally asphyxiated during the rape. Moo

 

[SpursGyal]

I think its probably more likely than not, that they are looking for a reduction to manslaughter.

I do hope Sarah's family do not have to sit through a trial, and they get the justice she deserves.

 

[LucyRocket]

I just find it unusual if insanity was an intended defence that he'd plead guilty to rape and kidnapping as he's basically admitted to having the mental capacity when he took her.

Absolutely right, but I think the difference lies in the outcome options within law. Kidnap someone, even while not of sound mind, can only be a guilty of kidnap outcome. Rape someone, even when not of sound mind, can only be a guilty of rape outcome. To have evidence of psychological considerations would only affect sentencing recommendations, such as in what facility the sentence is served, for those two crimes. Murder is quite different as there is another possible outcome in that yes, you caused someone's death, but due to the evidence of psychological considerations one CAN be found guilty of manslaughter as opposed to murder.

 

[MsBetsy]

It appears that he accepted responsibility but hasn't pleaded to the murder charge because: "The murder charge wasn't put to Wayne Couzens today because the defence team are awaiting medical reports they have commissioned. Originally the plea date was set for July with the provisional trial due in October." SOURCE

"Couzens has not yet been arraigned on the charge of murder.

Couzens will undergo medical and psychiatric reports ahead of a plea and trial preparation date currently set for July 9.
Couzens’ acceptance is not equivalent to a guilty plea.
If he does plead guilty to murder, then the court will proceed to sentencing either later the same day or at a future date" SOURCE

So I'd say it looks like he's more than likely going for diminished responsibility but is awaiting psychological reports to come in to back it up.

Ok, thank you! Somehow I missed the part about psychiatric evaluations. Interesting.

 

[Newthoughts]

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

The way I read it was that he pleaded guilty to kidnap and rape in the first bit - i.e. two charges in total.
As I read it the second bit was just an elaboration of that as in he pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnap and to a second charge of rape. Still just two charges.