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

[Tortoise]

On the fourth day of her hearing at the Old Bailey Court on Thursday, Ouissem Medouni defended herself for hitting the au pair. _ "_ I never, never, never touched or beat Sophie," says the French, as reported by AFP.

"I sometimes raised my voice," he concedes, acknowledging that he may have scared her or intimidated her by questioning her. "But she was more frightened by Sabrina," he assures.

Medouni acknowledges it: there were a lot of arguments in the home, "but it was her who started them," he says, calling her even "paranoid".

He explains that sometimes he needed to go out, to walk, but he swears that his absences from home were punctual: _ "_ because of the pressure in this madhouse, I needed a break. hard enough to love a crazy woman. "

Friday: He accuses Sabrina Kouider of having killed Sophie

Ouissem Médouni accuses his girlfriend of having killed Sophie Lionnet by plunging her head into the water of their bathtub. "You did it, you put your head in the water!" Says Medouni talking to Sabrina Kouider. "She's a very strong woman, you know, she can do it." If Ouissem Medouni first acknowledged having killed Sophie Lionnet by accident, it was to "protect his family," he said at the request of Sabrina Kouider. Medouni confesses that he is responsible for what happened because he could have stopped it. "It was the biggest mistake of my life" "There are many very bad decisions, is not it?" stresses the prosecutor in cross-examination. Your involvement goes much further, "he said, saying that Sophie Lionnet had been prevented from returning home because she had not been paid by her employers, Ouissem Medouni admits:" I should have protected her more. "

The hearing of Ouissem Medouni will continue Monday, April 23. The trial is scheduled to continue until May 11th.

https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/fai...es-declarations-de-ouissem-medouni-1524156335

using google translate

 

[michelle230]

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.

Hi Tortoise,
Thanks for updates below and also to everyone who has posted updates.

I hear what you are saying and don`t disagree with your reasoning.

However there is so much about this case and the way it is unfolding in court that I find abhorrent. Also there is a lot of detail behind the scenes which maybe you have to be there to witness. All the "extra" information. The complete picture is not being given (or allowed in fact), and there is so much skewering, distortion and "gagging".
I`m not sure exactly what I can and cannot post.
I feel like I am watching a game being played - or a drama - where the best actor is the winner. OM and SK are not the only ones telling untruths, playing the blame game. I understand the nature of the professionals jobs. However...

There is so much relevant information being disallowed. How can this be?
We haven`t seen (and may not) OM`s barrister cross examine SK so we don`t know how good he will be.
Is justice based on who has the best advice/the best barrister?
To me, Peart has had few good points to push home - the rest seems so banal, clutching at minor things and blowing them up to discredit OM as much as he can.
The reason (I am sure) that OM withdrew his original statement is because the way things could have gone with that, is that he could easily have ended up carrying the can wholly by himself. Easily.
Look at the Ben Butler case. How much was made of JG`s victim status at the hands of her abusive boyfriend? This was given huge significance. Look at the sentence she got! (I know it`s different in that she was not physically present when Ellie was killed, but still...she allowed that poor child to be battered, abused and finally murdered).
What about men who are abused for years by their partners - emotionally, physically, coercive control etc.
Why was the imbalance in SK`s and OM`s relationship not emphasised more? She was the controller in that relationship for sure.
Why has it not been pointed out that he did more for the boys than she ever did. And they were not even * his * children!!

I know he did a terrible thing. He knows it too. But to see her sitting there, pouting, making shocked dramatic gestures when OM says something about her part, her behaviour, her physical assaults - and with her little army of (expensive) support to calm her and attend to her - I actually left early today because I couldn`t stand it.

I can`t really say any more because of restrictions.

They are both guilty of a horrendous crime and deserve to be punished accordingly. But she is pure evil and she will destroy anyone who is unfortunate enough to form a relationship with her....and is weaker than her. But OM - I don`t believe him to be evil.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't think she is going to be getting away with anything, the evidence against her is far too strong, whether she gives evidence or not. There has been a lot of bad character witness testimony about her (Mark Walton, the friends and locals and landlords, police who had prior dealings with her and Sophie and her son), and the recordings. However indignant and manipulative she is managing to be from the dock, I really don't think the jurors will be fooled, even if they aren't getting some of the information that is being discussed outside their presence or withheld from them. I think the prosecution will be very aware of the game she has played/is playing and will work on that aspect. Don't forget JG wasn't charged with Ellie's murder, as abhorrent as her paltry sentence was.

I hope this case evens out next week, I'm sure it's been really tough seeing OM having to face SK's legal team first. I think this is one case where fancy lawyers won't make a difference. Remember Peart didn't get BB off.

Thanks for the updates Michelle. Hope you have a lovely rest this weekend.

 

[Horror]

Just stumbled onto this thread and have read all posts - this is like some crazed lunacy. Poor poor young lady to have fallen in to the grips of these maniacs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elainera]

Just stumbled onto this thread and have read all posts - this is like some crazed lunacy. Poor poor young lady to have fallen in to the grips of these maniacs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You summed it up perfectly.

I can't even imagine what her poor mum must be going through.

 

[Tortoise]

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

<snipped>

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

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

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

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. <>

First signed defence statement (manslaughter) 5.1.2018 <> 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

The reason (I am sure) that OM withdrew his original statement is because the way things could have gone with that, is that he could easily have ended up carrying the can wholly by himself. Easily.
<>

I've heavily snipped the quoted posts to hone in on the relevant parts to my query.

Michelle, do you know what changed between her asking him on the steps to take the blame (which he then did) and her statement/his second statement? I mean her statement shouldn't really have come as a surprise to him since she had already asked him, apparently.

Is it more likely that she didn't ask him to take the blame, he was just being honest in his statement and then when he saw her statement with lies about her being asleep he saw he could end up being convicted and she could get away with it?

Also, it might just be a language thing, but in the first quote he says to Peart "I think she is lying to you". He would know and the statement if true should be 'she is lying to you'.

It's quite different. Is he using an interpreter or is he testifying in English?

 

[michelle230]

I've heavily snipped the quoted posts to hone in on the relevant parts to my query.

Michelle, do you know what changed between her asking him on the steps to take the blame (which he then did) and her statement/his second statement? I mean her statement shouldn't really have come as a surprise to him since she had already asked him, apparently.

Is it more likely that she didn't ask him to take the blame, he was just being honest in his statement and then when he saw her statement with lies about her being asleep he saw he could end up being convicted and she could get away with it?

Also, it might just be a language thing, but in the first quote he says to Peart "I think she is lying to you". He would know and the statement if true should be 'she is lying to you'.

It's quite different. Is he using an interpreter or is he testifying in English?

Hi Tortoise,
I don`t know exactly how much time they had to talk in court originally. I image it was a snatched conversation.

She, of course was only out for herself in asking him to say it was all his doing. She can only take and use. She doesn`t have the ability to own any part of her behaviour.

When he made his original statement, I don`t think it was as much as following her request as it was that he wanted to tell the truth. Remember that OM was in total shock and couldn`t believe what had occurred. I think his statement was an unfiltered confession. He was not calculating.
I imagine that he was in a state of horror and confusion for a long time - after years of trauma and madness -and the subsequent horrific climax.
I feel sure there was trauma bonding and it can take a huge and sudden act to break free of that, and a long, long time of processing to understand what has actually happened and lift the fog that your life was shrouded in.
Presumably he couldn`t think straight (who could!) and followed the advice of his legal team.
Obviously I don`t know what or when things unfolded/when he understood that she was going to throw him under a bus/when the mist began to lift from his head.
He was guided by his legal team and I think clung to them blindingly. However, in time (I am guessing), he gained more and more of an understanding of how she had behaved over all these years, used him, abused him etc and what a fool he had been taken for in his love and devotion to her. And after all he had given and forgiven and been coerced into doing (yes - I know we need to take responsibility for our behaviour..), her expecting him to take the full blame...I think that probably shocked him into reality. I think he understood that he could end up carrying the can whilst she, yet again remained untouched. And I guess he snapped with rage and anger.
He changed his barrister, then he changed both his solicitors and his second barrister and has now got the team who are representing him.
Also, it might just be a language thing, but in the first quote he says to Peart "I think she is lying to you". He would know and the statement if true should be 'she is lying to you'.
I think that`s him trying to be polite and choose his words carefully and not be antagonistic or aggressive.
Many, many other times during his cross examination and when Peart puts forward the most ridiculous suggestions, he replies
"No, no and no!"
He is not using an interpreter.

 

[michelle230]

her expecting him to take the full blame...I think that probably shocked him into reality.

I also should have added that he was not only shocked by the fact that she expected him to willingly take the blame for her, but alongside that..the shock of where her madness had taken them all - murder of an innocent, young girl.

 

[michelle230]

I had been wondering about SK`s relationship with her family and in particular her mother, as a couple of references were made which I felt were possibly "red flags".
Yesterday, when OM was giving evidence about confronting SK when he came in and found that she had beaten SL with a flex/cable, she replied "Well..my mother used to do that to me".
OM said more than once, "I was wrong. That was the turning point. The absolute turning point. That`s when I should have done something. If I had, Sophie would be alive today".

 

[Tortoise]

I had been wondering about SK`s relationship with her family and in particular her mother, as a couple of references were made which I felt were possibly "red flags".
Yesterday, when OM was giving evidence about confronting SK when he came in and found that she had beaten SL with a flex/cable, she replied "Well..my mother used to do that to me".
OM said more than once, "I was wrong. That was the turning point. The absolute turning point. That`s when I should have done something. If I had, Sophie would be alive today".

What did he mean when he said he was wrong?

I would treat all her claims as dubious without more to back them up. She said she was raped? as a child, raped with her first pregnancy, strangled by MW.

 

[michelle230]

He was wrong not to stop it. To go to the police. To take control.
It was at this point that Sophie was unable to walk.

I agree that you can`t believe anything she says. However this rings true. There are indications that she craved her mother`s approval, maybe love? And that she never felt good enough for her mother. Who knows? Except somebody with a normal upbringing rarely turns into the adult that she is.

 

[michelle230]

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.

BIB
Paleface I agree with this.
P.S. Are you planning to attend court again?

 

[michelle230]

Got to court. Not on today - juror got migrane!

 

[mrazda71]

Ooh that's crappy for you AND the juror!

 

[michelle230]

Ooh that's crappy for you AND the juror!

Lol - not so crappy for me actually. Took myself to Marble Arch for some retail therapy!!

 

[janeh]

Lol - not so crappy for me actually. Took myself to Marble Arch for some retail therapy!!

Well you do deserve it after attending court for such an awful case. Are you intending to try again tomorrow?

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

 

[Paleface]

Hi Michelle,
Yes I intend to but half waiting to see if SK testifies, in which case I'll be down there like a shot. Do you know who's next on the stand? I heard somewhere that the trial is now expected to go on until the middle of May.

 

[Tortoise]

I expect she (if she is going to) will be on the stand rest of this week (ending 27th Apr).
Next week ending 4th May will be closing speeches x 3.
Final week ending 11th May will be judges summing up and jury deliberations.

 

[michelle230]

Just on train on way back.
OM unwell this morning. Judge insisted in calling doctor which can be hours of waiting!
So AM case was halted and resumed PM.
Judge clearly sees problems ahead. Told barristers he has cancelled his next commitment. Read into that what you will...
Friday - last half hour (wasn't there but told) prosecution began cross examination which continued this afternoon.
Will try to write short post later!

 

[Tortoise]

Does he mean he sees it going longer than predicted 11th May or some other sort of problem? Any indication that she is going to take the stand?

Look forward to your update!