UK UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London - Clapham Common area, 3 March 2021 *Arrests* #7

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
He may still have been in London - he could be one of those people who follows a routine even if they lose their job. Would probably not have been Sarah but may well have been someone else. Moo.

He would not have access a badge/warrant card though if it turns out he used that to trick her into stopping and not walking straight away:(
 
Sarah Everard disappearance: Family pay tribute to 'kind and strong' missing woman as they appeal for witnesses

The statement from the family refers to Sarah in the past tense - this is unusual IMO unless LE have concrete evidence that the victim is dead

So either there's not enough evidence that *WC* committed murder OR LE want to gather as much evidence as possible before charging him - either way, LE must have something pretty significant that has made enquiry change from kidnap to murder :-(
Yes, a mother especially will always refuse to accept her child is dead unless she sees for herself. A parent’s mind and heart won’t allow it. Something must have been shown to them that’s undeniably an identifying visual confirmation.
 
I think re the sun article about 2 coppers - it might mean the copper who flashed (WC) and the copper who failed to act appropriately on the report rather than 2 coppers being investigated for flashing. Not sure about the 4 other referrals though.

My other thought - is there any possibility that fast food restaurant referred to is the cabin frequented by police that Sarah passed by on her route home??

That crossed my mind but it just sounds wrong to call it a restaurant. Outlet maybe? Or at a push a cafe.

(The two actual cafe/restaurants on Clapham Common are both closed for renovations. There are fast food places near the southern tip of Clapham Common)
 
I think he banged his head to wind down time on the PACE clock. I reckon he wanted to minimise interview and detention time. There was an episode of 24 Hours in Police Custody where a woman did the same thing.

The PACE clock stops when the arrested person leaves the police station for medical reasons and restarts once the suspect returns to the police station.

In the event that questioning has to continue en route (very select circumstances) then the officer has to contemporaneously record the interview and the times.

In hospital a suspect may only be interviewed with medical consent.
 
In terms of the timings and if there was time to coax between 9:28 when phone call ended and 9:30 when phone last pinged:

Sarah Everard disappearance: House and woods in Kent searched

this suggests she was seen walking alone on a Ring camera at “about 9:30”, so this would suggest that the abduction did not start immediately after the phone call.

However it also means we don’t know how long between her being seen on the Ring doorbell and her phone going off. I don’t know when it would next be expected to Ping if it had remained switched on to give a backstop of when we know it was off by.
 
I was building a theory which has been likely ruled out my the latest info about the staff reporting it, but I am going to put it here anyway...

I was wondering whether he might have exposed himself to a female colleague (poss also friend/lover). If she had reported him it would explain why they knew who he was, but might also explain why it wasn't treated in the right way (the duty officers could have put it down to a 'personal relationship' that wasn't their business to take forward). If his advances were rejected, and he perhaps discovered she'd reported him, he might then have taken it out on SE in anger. The colleague could have then alerted the LE again about her concerns which might have led to him being a POI from early on. All highly unlikely but I wanted to throw it into the mix. JMO
 
“At a fast food restaurant” makes me think of a drive through. You can imagine the rest. I’m guessing nobody knew it was WC and the police simply hadn’t followed up yet as they receive so many complaints of IE - which is a story in itself.

Maybe when SE went missing they started looking at recent incidents and his car was flagged - and then was also seen on the cctv linked to Sarah’s disappearance.
 
I wonder if the 2 people referred to IOPC are going to be the people you would expect to govern the behavior of an officer: the Sergeant and the inspector of the unit.

The behaviour of an officer is investigated by their forces Professional Standards Department. In short, if they knew it was him doing the IE then they’ll have to justify why they haven’t dealt with it in a certain way.
 
"Our investigation will look at the actions of the MPS after police received a report on 28 February that a man had exposed himself at a fast food restaurant in South London."Our investigation will look at the actions of the MPS after police received a report on 28 February that a man had exposed himself at a fast food restaurant in South London."

Note the official IPCC statement (my bold) says 'at' not 'in'- a small pendantic point, but one that makes a difference to likely amount of CCTV available

I'm thinking drive thru?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
1,684
Total visitors
1,808

Forum statistics

Threads
605,467
Messages
18,187,358
Members
233,376
Latest member
Let the light shine
Back
Top