GUILTY Uk - Sophie Lionnet, 21, Body Found Burned, Wandsworth, London, 20 Sep 2017 *arrests*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

:wave: Michelle!

Thanks for the updates.

Sorry for the barrage of questions - who did the son have to do and say things to - Sophie? He's about 5 according to the testimony of Mark Walton, unless there is an older son too. Is Medouni the father of the other one?

I think they're lucky they aren't facing charges of neglect and cruelty to the sons too, having to live under that roof with torture of Sophie going on must have been traumatising.

Any indication as to whether the defendants will give evidence?

Thanks again, wonderful to have you there xx
 
Hi Tortoise,
Sorry - having a lot of problems posting on the site.
It seemed clear that the son had been prepped many times. SK claimed that he wet/pooed himself because of the "abuse", yet there were no signs of this.
He was found in..I think Homebase..or some DIY place after apparently missing for two hours. Again, apparently he didn`t know his name and said that he had been bundled into the boot of a car by MW. He said that he had abused (won`t go into details) by MW..first it was once, then numerous times..he said he had run away because MW was following him etc etc. SK made him repeat all these terrible things many times, to the school/police etc
SK constantly called the police and claimed sexual abuse of son/harassment yet each time she regurgitated the same incidents from months ago - whilst calling them to claim more incidents. Screamed at the school on occasions, insisted on meetings, yet when child was given CAMHS appointments, she failed to take him (would mean child being spoken to/treated without her being present).
She is a real piece of work. Hysterical and like BB, she cannot see further than herself. Apparently he tried to cover up for her but when he realised that she had pleaded it was all his fault (the boyfriend), he changed his plea.
He is a pathetic apology of a man. Balding, aged and weak.
Just read that one of the many people attending to her in the dock, is an appropriate adult (that usually is in court to support a child.
 
Thank you Michelle. Horrendous stuff. I'm surprised this all went on so long after hearing that. No one said or did anything! Does she have schizophrenia?
 
Tortoise said:
Thank you Michelle. Horrendous stuff. I'm surprised this all went on so long after hearing that. No one said or did anything! Does she have schizophrenia?
Click to expand...

Yes I was discussing with the friend u went with today. We were trying to understand why she was unable to stand up for herself/escape/get help. Terror perhaps of not being believed and what her abusers would do to her if she had to return to them and they knew that she had been to the police. An unworldly girl alone in a strange country (her first time abroad ), unable to communicate and without money. She must have felt desperate and trapped.
I wish I could have saved her. Brought her home to me and given her money to get back to her family. It is really quite unreal.
I'm no expert but schizophrenia - no - but sounds like Paranoid PD, definitely narcissistic PD with an unhealthy dose of Borderline PD thrown in for good measure. And maybe just an almighty dose of severe control and abject bullying. But just my impressions.
I also can't understand the hold she had over the men in her life. They must have known she was mad and unbalanced but did her bidding nevertheless. Even her friend was afraid of her.
It seemed that no one could stand up to her yet now she appears to have totally disintegrated.
 
After MW finally stopped paying her rent she was evicted and returned to France for a while. She then returned to London and tried to break into her old flat - the one she'd been evicted from. The Landlord had to call the police.
 
Very quiet board!
Tortoise - think it`s just you and I!
Court PM only today. Most of it taken up firstly with police statements - where SK had gone to the police with nonsensical, incoherent statements about her ex`s abuse and that her nanny was colluding with him. Police were confused why, in that case SK was still employing the nanny. SK kept texting and emailing to make further appointments to discuss her son`s sexual abuse citing his resulting "bowel" problems and medical records she had obtained in America. Eventually she was given a follow up appointment to discuss this in more detail but (not) surprisingly didn`t respond to this invitation!
Much of the afternoon was taken up discussing the different assortment of phones/sim cards used and explaining to the jury how to understand the technical information they were presented with. One witness took the stand - a phone technology expert who had worked on the digital trail. The day after the death of Sophie, SK had made two phone calls to France - one was a very long call. Mention was made of the retrieval of deleted texts and videos. Unfortunately for SK and OM, they had filmed long videos of their torturing of Sophie (which they planned to use as evidence that she had confessed to theft and collusion with Mark Walton).
The last part of the afternoon was taken up with the reading of SK`s and OM`s statements. Both blamed each other. OM had tried to change his original plea to manslaughter - once he realised that SK had claimed he was fully responsible for Sophie`s death - but this plea of manslaughter was rejected.
Interestingly, after SK`s tantrum and tears yesterday morning where she asked to be excused (I missed that as only went in the afternoon due to transport problems), when OM`s statement was read out, she again asked (and was granted) to be excused. Thus she was not present when OM`s statement or her own statement which followed, were read out in court.
I am happy to post on here but is anyone else actually following the case? Please let me know if you are and would like me to continue to post.
Michelle
 
Kouider took Ms Lionnet to Lavender Hill Police Station on 10 August last year, one year before the alleged murder, where she demanded officers question the nanny over her ‘relationship’ with Mark Walton.

Pao Jahangir, who interviewed them both, said Kouider was ‘adamant’ that Ms Lionnet had let Walton into her house without her permission.

He said of Kouider: ‘She didn’t have a plausible explanation... there were no offences Ms Kouider was alleging.'

‘Although she was making the allegations with the nanny, she was friends with her and didn’t seem obviously angry.'

'Miss Kouider seemed fixated with the fact that the nanny had met her ex-partner and wanted her to admit it.’

Mr Jahangir said he separated Kouider and Ms Lionnet because of the nanny’s ‘demeanour’.

‘The nanny didn’t speak much, but she politely explained that none of the allegations was true.'

She was still employed by her and living with her.

‘I recall Miss Kouider leaving reasonably happy having spoken to my supervisor.’

Sergeant Paul Taylor, the supervisor, spoke to Kouider over the phone the same day some time before 7.30pm.

He said in a statement, read to the court by prosecutor Ben Fitzgerald: ‘To me it seemed that Kouider wanted to find out whether her boyfriend had come back in May and she wanted the police to interrogate her [Ms Lionnet] about it.

‘I explained that was something we would not do.
‘If she didn’t trust her having boys round then she could always stop using her.’

Kouider had searched YouTube for ‘how to make men do anything for you’, ‘how to be a private detective’ and ‘how to deal with a person who puts you down all the time’ between June 10 and July 12 2017, the court heard.

She had also searched for ‘Mark Walton’, and ‘why you always lying to me’, and visited a Maplin.co.uk page for spy cameras.
Prosecutor Richard Horwell QC told jurors that Kouider and Medouni became ‘obsessed’ with finding Mr Walton’s home.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nanny-Googled-make-men-you.html#ixzz5Bk4ip8H9

 
michelle230 said:
Very quiet board!
Tortoise - think it`s just you and I!
Court PM only today. Most of it taken up firstly with police statements - where SK had gone to the police with nonsensical, incoherent statements about her ex`s abuse and that her nanny was colluding with him. Police were confused why, in that case SK was still employing the nanny. SK kept texting and emailing to make further appointments to discuss her son`s sexual abuse citing his resulting "bowel" problems and medical records she had obtained in America. Eventually she was given a follow up appointment to discuss this in more detail but (not) surprisingly didn`t respond to this invitation!
Much of the afternoon was taken up discussing the different assortment of phones/sim cards used and explaining to the jury how to understand the technical information they were presented with. One witness took the stand - a phone technology expert who had worked on the digital trail. The day after the death of Sophie, SK had made two phone calls to France - one was a very long call. Mention was made of the retrieval of deleted texts and videos. Unfortunately for SK and OM, they had filmed long videos of their torturing of Sophie (which they planned to use as evidence that she had confessed to theft and collusion with Mark Walton).
The last part of the afternoon was taken up with the reading of SK`s and OM`s statements. Both blamed each other. OM had tried to change his original plea to manslaughter - once he realised that SK had claimed he was fully responsible for Sophie`s death - but this plea of manslaughter was rejected.
Interestingly, after SK`s tantrum and tears yesterday morning where she asked to be excused (I missed that as only went in the afternoon due to transport problems), when OM`s statement was read out, she again asked (and was granted) to be excused. Thus she was not present when OM`s statement or her own statement which followed, were read out in court.
I am happy to post on here but is anyone else actually following the case? Please let me know if you are and would like me to continue to post.
Michelle
Click to expand...
Oh yes, please continue to post! I am avidly following, I just very rarely post. Thank you for keeping us up on what's happening.

Sent from my Z798BL using Tapatalk
 
Hi Michelle, yeah it's pretty quiet on here but please keep posting.

You're input is helping a lot, I've been struggling to get my head round this.
 
You're input is helping a lot, I've been struggling to get my head round this.[/QUOTE]

LB - which part are you struggling with?
 
michelle230 said:
Very quiet board!

rsbm

I am happy to post on here but is anyone else actually following the case? Please let me know if you are and would like me to continue to post.
Michelle
Click to expand...

Oh yes Michelle please continue posting. I'm very interested and following just not posting much myself.
 
michelle230 said:
Very quiet board!
Tortoise - think it`s just you and I!
Court PM only today. Most of it taken up firstly with police statements - where SK had gone to the police with nonsensical, incoherent statements about her ex`s abuse and that her nanny was colluding with him. Police were confused why, in that case SK was still employing the nanny. SK kept texting and emailing to make further appointments to discuss her son`s sexual abuse citing his resulting "bowel" problems and medical records she had obtained in America. Eventually she was given a follow up appointment to discuss this in more detail but (not) surprisingly didn`t respond to this invitation!
Much of the afternoon was taken up discussing the different assortment of phones/sim cards used and explaining to the jury how to understand the technical information they were presented with. One witness took the stand - a phone technology expert who had worked on the digital trail. The day after the death of Sophie, SK had made two phone calls to France - one was a very long call. Mention was made of the retrieval of deleted texts and videos. Unfortunately for SK and OM, they had filmed long videos of their torturing of Sophie (which they planned to use as evidence that she had confessed to theft and collusion with Mark Walton).
The last part of the afternoon was taken up with the reading of SK`s and OM`s statements. Both blamed each other. OM had tried to change his original plea to manslaughter - once he realised that SK had claimed he was fully responsible for Sophie`s death - but this plea of manslaughter was rejected.
Interestingly, after SK`s tantrum and tears yesterday morning where she asked to be excused (I missed that as only went in the afternoon due to transport problems), when OM`s statement was read out, she again asked (and was granted) to be excused. Thus she was not present when OM`s statement or her own statement which followed, were read out in court.
I am happy to post on here but is anyone else actually following the case? Please let me know if you are and would like me to continue to post.
Michelle
Click to expand...
Hi I am following the case and look everyday for the trial updates. This is an extremely sad case and I wish that Sophie was brave enough to get out if that house. Her employer is a very dangerous woman and I hope that she doesn't try to use her present 'fragile state' as part of her defence. I believe this is all an act on her part.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk
 
There are quite a few of us following here but not an awful lot we can say or post!

What can we say? None of it makes ANY sense so there's not much to discuss as opposed to the majority of cases where there is usually a grain of rhyme or reason to be deduced and debated.

Also not really much to be found in the press other than is already being posted by Legally Bland ... I did find and post the link to Sabrinas 2 FB profiles but not much to see there ...

Good on you for attending court ... don't think I'd be able to keep my pie hole shut!
 
janeh said:
Hi I am following the case and look everyday for the trial updates. This is an extremely sad case and I wish that Sophie was brave enough to get out if that house. Her employer is a very dangerous woman and I hope that she doesn't try to use her present 'fragile state' as part of her defence. I believe this is all an act on her part.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

bbm - Agree! She'll do anything to get attention. I think she never got over the fact that MW withdrew from her. Big blow to her overinflated ego. She made Sophie pay for it, her anger and jealousy dictating her actions. She's bordering on delusional with that ridiculous story about Sophie and Mark. Her inner world must be a hellhole.
 
michelle230 said:
https://lejournal.online/2018/03/28...-lionnet-savais-quils-etaient-train-de-noyer/

This is an article from a French newspaper (use google tranlate!)
I have a horrible feeling the witness is the child...
Click to expand...

Did anyone else read this? It's awful! They hid poor Sophie s body in the children's bedroom under one of their beds...
I think the case will pick up pace pretty quickly. I can't see there being any defence witnesses apart from those two. He will ( must) go on the stand to try and get a lighter sentence. I have a feeling that she won't be able to take the stand. She will not be mentally able to withstand the cross examination.
Every time the facts of what she did are discussed, she runs out of the court room followed by the appropriate witness and medical staff.
 
michelle230 said:
Did anyone else read this? It's awful! They hid poor Sophie s body in the children's bedroom under one of their beds...
I think the case will pick up pace pretty quickly. I can't see there being any defence witnesses apart from those two. He will ( must) go on the stand to try and get a lighter sentence. I have a feeling that she won't be able to take the stand. She will not be mentally able to withstand the cross examination.
Every time the facts of what she did are discussed, she runs out of the court room followed by the appropriate witness and medical staff.
Click to expand...

I think this is the part of the original Times story that is based on. It's almost definitely one of the sons. I really hope they're getting therapy:
____________________

Recordings of police interviews with the boy were played to the jury at the couple’s murder trial at the Old Bailey.

The boy said the couple had repeatedly demanded Ms Lionnet tell them where she had allegedly taken another child to be sexually abused by Ms Kouider’s former boyfriend, Mark Walton, a founding member of Boyzone.

He said the nanny, whom he described as an “evil babysitter”, had been “happy because she had completed her evil mission but at the same time she was going to be tortured by [Ms Kouider and Mr Medouni]”.

The boy told police that in September last year he heard Ms Lionnet “screaming in the bathroom and lots of splashing” at a flat in Southfields, southwest London. He said he asked Ms Kouider what was happening: “I said, ‘Are you drowning her?’ She said ‘no’. She did not give me a full answer. She said she was just talking to her . . . I thought [Ms Kouider] was pushing her back in the water and not letting her out.”

The next day Ms Kouider told him that Ms Lionnet had returned to France “because of the evils, the stealing, the threatening and lying”, he told police.

The child said he had previously watched Ms Kouider “slap her and hurt” the nanny and was told “to go and hit her if I wanted”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...tter-in-the-bath-murder-trial-hears-j56cc7b52
 
It hurts to read every new piece of evidence this case brings ...

I can't wait for it to be over and for those 2 to be behind bars for the longest time possible.

Is it too much to even hope of a whole life sentence? Considering the months of torture, murder, concealing the murder ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 137 more.
Total: 3,041 (members: 138, guests: 2,903)

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
2,903
Total visitors
3,041
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,252
Messages
18,154,082
Members
231,686
Latest member
Bfwbnfts
Back
Top