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

[Legally Bland]

From yesterday:
_________________

CourtNewsUK
@CourtNewsUK
Behaviour of French journalists on Sophie Lionnet murder trial causing problems at the Old Bailey - shouting about evidence in earshot of the jury, approaching family members in court when police leave the room

https://mobile.twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/986269678342426625

 

[Legally Bland]

The Old Bailey heard that after finding the au pair in the bath in her pyjamas and with her eyes open, Mr Medouni pulled Ms Lionnet out of the water and tried to resuscitate her for an hour.

Rather than alerting police, he put her body in a suitcase and Ms Kouider suggested burning it in the garden, Mr Medouni said.

He also blamed Ms Kouider for beating the 21-year-old au pair with an electric cable days before her death.

After the charred remains were discovered by firefighters, Mr Medouni told jurors his partner asked him to take the blame.

Describing the events, Mr Medouni said: "Sabrina woke me up around 01:30. She said Sophie was not breathing.

"She was saying, 'what have I done, what have I done?' I was shocked to see her like that."

Mr Medouni said he told his partner to call 999 but she did not.

Asked why he put the body into a suitcase, he replied: "I was in a state of mind where I did not know what to do because it was too late to call the police."

He described how Ms Kouider came up with the plan to dispose of the body over the next two days.

"I remember it was the next morning, she was lying on my bed and she said, 'We will burn her'.

"I said, 'What, are you crazy? That's crazy. I will never do that, never'."

Orlando Pownall QC, defending, asked the financial analyst what he now felt for his partner.

"She destroyed my life," Mr Medouni replied.

"I have my part as well. I could have stopped her. I could have done things and Sophie would have been alive."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43801600

 

[Legally Bland]

Medouni said he suggested burying Miss Lionnet in the garden, but Kouider wanted to disguise a pyre behind a gazebo.

The defendant said Kouider ordered him to buy the tent from B&Q but he did not.

Meanwhile, she took a shower saying it was to “clean her sin”, jurors heard.

On September 20 last year, Kouider took Miss Lionnet’s body outside in the suitcase and they burned it near the house, the court heard.

Medouni said they cooked chicken on a barbecue nearby because of “the smell”.

When firefighters uncovered the charred remains, Medouni claimed it was the carcass of a sheep, which he told jurors was “stupid”.

He said he explained what happened because he wanted to “protect the family and myself”.

Orlando Pownall QC, defending, said: “Mr Medouni, you have said a number of harsh things about Ms Kouider.

“What are your present feelings for her?”

Medouni replied: “She destroyed my life. I have my part as well. I could have stopped her. I could have done things and Sophie would have been alive.

“So I hate myself for that, for letting the violence grow without calling the police or go to emergency services because I had many occasions to do that.”

Mr Pownall recalled an incident in court earlier this week when Kouider called Medouni a “murderer” from the dock.

Medouni denied the accusation, adding: “I never, ever, ever slapped, beat a woman. I’m not violent.”

The couple have admitted perverting the course of justice but deny murder.

Cross examining, Icah Peart QC accused Medouni of telling “lie after lie about Sabrina” and what happened at their Wimbledon Park Road home.

Kouider’s lawyer pointed out he could not even look at the woman in the dock he professed to love.

Medouni replied: “No, I think she is lying to you.”

He described himself as “a follower”, “a bit naive” and “too nice” but denied being “self centred”.

He said: “I don’t want to pay for something I didn’t do. I’m not an egoist.”

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/murder-accused-cried-what-have-i-done-court-told-11364265127573

 

[Legally Bland]

I think the rest of this article is pretty much the same as above:
_______________

Eventually they agreed to set her body ablaze on the bonfire.

The following day, when Ms Lionnet would be cremated, Kouider texted Medouni simply saying 'caustic soda.'

Medouni said: 'She took a shower and she shaved herself and she told me it's for cleaning, to clean her sin.

'That's what she said, clean her sin.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rench-nanny-told-burn-body.html#ixzz5D2Y3DTyZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[sar2them1984]

As much as i hate to say it i do in part feel sorry for his guy.

Was anyone in court today? Did he seem genuinely remorseful becauae reporting sure makes it sound like it

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

I don't have a nanogram of sympathy for him. Not a whiff.

I think he is lying about his involvement. He would have us believe that every time Sophie was attacked he wasn't there, that Sophie was attacked twice in the bath in a matter of days, the first time he was called by a crying SK when he conveniently slipped out to the park, coming back to find her with broken bones and covered in bruises, the second time he was conveniently asleep and was woken up by a crying SK again to find Sophie dead in the bath, he asked SK to call the police but couldn't do so himself, so he put her in a suitcase. The first time he couldn't call police because Sophie couldn't walk.

I call BS. She was beaten to death by the pair of them and held under the water. "Later, a witness described hearing Miss Lionnet “splashing” and “screaming” in the bathroom with the defendants a couple of days before she was found dead."

How do you break someone's ribs and sternum in the bath?

Dr Charlotte Randall refused to rule out a blow to the head, strangulation or drowning, the court heard.

She told jurors how Miss Lionnet had fractured five ribs and her breast bone up to three days before her death.

More recent injuries included bruises, a "painful" broken jaw and possible cheek bone fracture.

Dr Randall found blood in Miss Lionnet's nostrils indicating blunt force trauma, possibly from a "blow or punch", the court heard.

Remorse = taking responsibility and not lying.

 

[michelle230]

Just home and will do an update shortly. Apologies for not replying to PMs but have received and read

Can I ask a couple of questions about legalities and process as I`m sure some people on here have a greater knowledge of these things..

1. The discussions that take place between the judge and barristers when the jury and defendants have left the courtroom - are these discussions that should not be put on a public forum? Or is it just if it appertains to children/family court etc

2. OM gave his evidence and therefore is subject to pretty harsh cross examining (by an extremely good defence barrister -SK`s). What will happen if SK does not take the stand and therefore is not subjected to the same robust cross examining? This will give her a serious advantage surely?

 

[michelle230]

OM finished his evidence giving timeline of events. One area that was particularly difficult for him, bearing in mind that SL`s body was put in a suitcase under the bunk beds, was "Where were the children sleeping?" This was painful as the he clearly knew how repellent it was to do this if the children were sleeping there. He answered that K had moved from the bedroom into their bedroom at some point (obviously after being woken by the noise!).

He "didn`t" notice where G was!! Apparantly...

OM took children to school on 19th. SK phoned her parents (that must be the long call to France that was found in the analysis. She wanted them to come to London.

Without going into everything, basically OM was seen on CCTV leaving the flat to buy items already reported. SK took shower and shaved to cleanse her sins.

He returned about 1 pm. SK began to move s/case from children`s room to their bedroom (I understand there is a door that leads to the garden from their b/room. OM was in shock, and was led by SK (I believe this). The s/case fell against the window. Eventually OM took it outside. Fire started with newspaper, nail polish remover and bits of wood. SK went out half an hour later to buy more nail varnish remover. She returned with it, then said she had promised to take K to some activity and she was going! OM asked her to stay with him, but she left.
When firemen arrived, one of them said that he felt OM wanted to "say something". Clearly very troubled. But didn`t.
SK rang tow/three times on mobile. OM arrested. Had solicitor. NO comment interview. (Protecting everyone!!) Both then charged and taken to court. They had a chance to speak once on the stairs in the court. SK asked OM to take the blame. (No doubt, thinking he would looking at past history and all he had done for her no matter what!)

First signed defence statement (manslaughter) 5.1.2018 Said they were desperate for SL to give them the phone she was using to correspond with MW. They were forcing her head under water. OM admitted to punching her. Said her head slipped and hit the tiles and she slipped under the water. He spent an hour giving CPR but realised she was dead.

So...OM did not see SK`s statement until just before the start of the trial! He then withdrew and made second statement 15.3.18 - four days before the actual trial began

 

[michelle230]

Sar2them1984...I`m kind of with you! It`s hard to explain really.

 

[michelle230]

OM did not do what he should have done. He bears part responsibility for the torture and murder of a young, defenseless girl. She was both terrorised and terrified. If he had acted differently, SL would be alive.
However although I haven`t got the time (or energy) to write about the 16 years he spent with SK, I strongly believe that had he not met her, he would never have found himself in the dock as a co defendant in a murder trial.

His life must have been hell. He was abused himself for years and, as we know, abused people are often unable to leave their abusers. More to the point, I believe his remorse is genuine and for this I also believe he will get a lesser sentence.

So yes, his remorse rings true. I think he is haunted by what he has done.

I`m not excusing him - not at all - he is culpable - but when you have witnessed other cold blooded murderers e.g. Ben Butler, Ian Stewart...well...OM is different to them. He does have a conscience and is has certainly kicked in. Too late of course...

SK - I have been watching her closely over the days. Today she behaved differently - to some extent. The reason being, that no longer was she hearing bad truths about herself..cue head shaking, shouting, hysterics, hand over ears etc...but today * he * was being slated by Peart during the cross examination. The heat was off her. Of course there were still mutterings and head nodding and head shaking, but I had a very strong impression of her...enjoyment. She appears (to me anyway) to almost believe she is the main star in a Hollywood movie - she has the leading role in a major performance and boy she is loving it.

She is crazy!

Wanted to write more about the cross examination but too tired. All I`ll say is that despite it being hard going and a lot of provocation by Peart, very surprisingly OM spoke clearly, quietly and pretty firmly. He did not rise to the continual bait, but stood his ground quietly. Obviously we know he is/will tell many lies but I also think he is telling many truths too.

Off to bed :seeya:

 

[Elainera]

To me too, OM's remorse rings true. Nevertheless imo he is as guilty as SK in Sophie's death, no matter who of the two actually punched her and drowned her. There was long standing abuse going on that he took part in. He had many many opportunities to stop it, report it, to help Sophie leave, to get help, anything ... but he did nothing. It was the two of them that created this horrendous situation, the two of them that broke Sophie down, and the two of them that either actively or passively killed her. If he hadn't been there, always siding with SK, maybe it hadn't escalated as it did. He might not have done the actual deed, but he supported it by his passiveness, his refusal to help Sophie. So imo he should not receive a lighter sentence than SK. In my eyes they are both murderers.

Thank you Michelle, for your reporting and insight!

 

[Tortoise]

Just home and will do an update shortly. Apologies for not replying to PMs but have received and read

Can I ask a couple of questions about legalities and process as I`m sure some people on here have a greater knowledge of these things..

1. The discussions that take place between the judge and barristers when the jury and defendants have left the courtroom - are these discussions that should not be put on a public forum? Or is it just if it appertains to children/family court etc

2. OM gave his evidence and therefore is subject to pretty harsh cross examining (by an extremely good defence barrister -SK`s). What will happen if SK does not take the stand and therefore is not subjected to the same robust cross examining? This will give her a serious advantage surely?

I have never been able to find the rules for posting about legal argument but I have been informed before by someone here that it should not be put on the forum.

IMO it won't be to her advantage not to give evidence. She would have to trust that the jury will believe he acted alone without hearing her explanations or answering questions - and with all that witness evidence of her picking up a chair to attack Sophie, the witness saying that she was holding Sophie under the water, the recordings etc. It seems to me she's toast whatever she does - I think it's unlikely she will be able to control her histrionics in the witness box.

 

[PinkPrincessPoop]

While I do believe SK was the main instigator, I also believe OM was much more active than he would care to admit. I do feel he had to have found some type of enjoyment/thrill for these activities to go on four hours and hours, month after month. Where was his remorse during ALL those times? Spare me the crocodile tears. SK was the ringleader but OM was a willing (maybe even happy) participant.

I'm also appalled that so many people (even adults) knew about the state of Sophie and some of the stuff that was going on, and no one seriously went to authorities...

 

[michelle230]

Will update later but just to let anyone intending on coming to court tomorrow (I know there are some of you), court will not begin until 12.30 due to prior commitments. There will be no lunch break.
I will be going tomorrow so may see you!

 

[Paleface]

Having heard most of the audio tapes, OM does come across as the gentler of the two, often trying to calm the situation especially when SK flies off the handle. So I don't think his manner in the witness box is an act - it's the demeanour of a downtrodden, beaten man who realises the last 16 years of his miserable life with this nutter have led him to act completely out of character.

I agree with Michelle about SK seeing herself as the star of the show. Her face always has that half pout and she has absolutely no shame about her, often staring you out if you catch her gaze. If I was her counsel I'd advise her not to go in the witness box because not only will she undoubtedly say too much and incriminate herself, but I'm pretty sure the jury simply won't like her. Less is more for Mr Peart I reckon. Having said that, if she does give testimony it'll be edge of the seat viewing.

 

[PinkPrincessPoop]

Also maybe this is simply a difference between US and UK, but why did this couple have a nanny? In the US, nannies and au pairs are for the upper middle class and wealthy. I've never known anyone here who simultaneously lived in public housing/received disability *and* had a nanny, let alone someone who "worked from home."

 

[janeh]

Also maybe this is simply a difference between US and UK, but why did this couple have a nanny? In the US, nannies and au pairs are for the upper middle class and wealthy. I've never known anyone here who simultaneously lived in public housing/received disability *and* had a nanny, let alone someone who "worked from home."

I can't comment accurately but this is my opinion only. I think that SK thinks quite highly of herself and wanted to live a celebrity lifestyle, even though she didn't have an income to support this. She describes herself as a Fashion Designer, but I have read somewhere that she wasn't very good at it, so more than likely that didn't bring in a large income. The household was heavily in debt and Nannies in this country are not expensive - like slave labour I would describe it as.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

 

[Paleface]

She also referred to herself as a songwriter although I don’t think there was any evidence of her designing clothes or writing a song. I think she’s a fantasist who appropriates the careers of those around her she admires. She certainly didn’t need a nanny as she had no job to go to. It was said in the prosecution’s opening statement that Sophie received little if any payment and wasn’t even fed property so it was easy for SK to afford to keep her and appear to be successful. God knows what Kouder did with herself but she was rarely seen with her kids.

 

[Nabrisa]

Hmmmm the saying 'the devil finds work for idle hands' springs to mind. SK, although she had no job, was never with the kids or seen out doing the usual daily life chores like food shopping. OM was sometimes seen with the boys but mostly it was sophie. Reports say that OM was always softly spoken. That doesn't seem like an act for the witness box. All the witness accounts seem to be about SKs aggression and never mention OM. I too believe he was sucked in by SK and got caught up in the situation (he truly was her lapdog). He obviously regrets it now (I do believe he is remorseful) but he had many opportunities to make a stand and didn't and so is almost as guilty as her. SK clearly has no remorse/regret-pure evil.

 

[Tortoise]

I think possibly we have different understandings of the word remorse. I don't doubt that OM regrets his actions, wishes he could go back and make different choices, wishes he wasn't caught, wishes Sophie was alive. Etc.

That isn't remorse.

If I can use another example because it highlights it perfectly. Oscar Pistorius was sentenced to 6 years for murdering Reeva Steenkamp, when the statutory minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years. The judge who sentenced him reduced his sentence because she said he was remorseful - he cried a lot during the trial and said he was sorry. He shot 4 times through the toilet door, 3 of those bullets hit Reeva. The state appealed to the Supreme Court to have his sentence increased because he had not shown remorse - he had always denied firing the 4 bullets intentionally. The definition of murder is it was intentional. The state's appeal was upheld and his sentence was increased to 15 years because he had not admitted his crime and therefore had not shown remorse.

Remorse requires admission and does not fear punishment. I very much doubt OM would be saying any of this to anyone if he had managed to finish his bonfire and dispose of Sophie's remains. I very much doubt he would have broken up with SK or gone to the police, and I doubt he would have ever told Sophie's parents that she was dead. If he is lying about his part in Sophie's death, he is not remorseful. Standing his ground under cross-examination from SK's QC is defiance when good conscience would be to admit fully his part and not attribute everything to SK, even if he wouldn't have been here if it wasn't for SK and even if he was abused by SK too.