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

[Tortoise]

Do we know that her diagnosis is BPD? Or is that an assumption?

I think I just get really frustrated by many cases (Jamie Bulger, kayleigh haywood) this one included, where people witness things but, do nothing!

The friend/neighbour witnessed Sabrina beating Sophie (is it the same neighbour who took Sophie into her home at some point?) But didn't report it to anyone.

No, I have no idea of her diagnosis. It's only my opinion from knowing one very well and reading the details of this case and seeing where she is being kept is a specialist unit.

There were many chances for intervention here, it's unbelievable. I suppose a lot of the final stages took place during the school summer holidays so the children weren't being observed by teachers if they had said anything, but that's only one aspect, we know friends did nothing, and others. Neighbours would report a bonfire, but not all the shouting and screaming that went on!

 

[Legally Bland]

Nothing else really at the link.
________________

NANNY MURDER SUSPECT ADMITS PUSHING VICTIM IN ROW OVER PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

A fashion designer who allegedly killed a French nanny and burned her body in the garden today (mon) admitted pushing her after catching her going through her private documents.

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/nanny-murder-suspect-admits-pushing-victim-in-row-over-private-documents/

 

[Legally Bland]

Looks like that's it for today. Another case is currently in court 6.

http://xhibit.justice.gov.uk/centralcriminalcourt.htm

She told jurors she had also pushed the au pair in early August when she found her looking at papers in the house.

"Sophie was sitting there near a library where I have some documents and she was going through some files," she added.

"I pushed her and took the papers from her and asked 'What are you doing?'

"I did not hit her. I didn't do anything else. I did not kick her - I just pushed her."

On 12 July, Ms Kouider said she confronted Miss Lionnet in the kitchen for not organising the family breakfast.

She said: "It made me upset and I said to Sophie 'I'm sick and tired of you lying all the time'.

"Sophie stayed quiet. She was in my way so I just pushed her because I wanted to go outside for a cigarette."

Ms Kouider was asked about CCTV footage she sent to her former friend Nicole Vatonavimlakul showing Sophia walking around her home.

Icah Peart QC, defending, asked: "Were you deliberately spying on Sophie?"

"Not at all. It was for safety," she replied.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43952116

 

[Tortoise]

One of her friends, Nicole Vatonavimlakul, who was present during the scene, said that Sophie Lionnet had fallen to the ground, and that she had thought that Sabrina Kouider, who had seized a chair, was going to hit her.
"I do not remember seeing her fall," said Sabrina Kouider, denying she wanted to hurt him [her]. She assured that her gesture "had no consequences" on Sophie Lionnet, who "was well".


She also denied accusations of a family acquaintance, twice at the home of Sabrina Kouider, on the ground floor of a house divided into two dwellings.
This witness, Steve Brown, said he saw twice Sabrina Kouider screaming on Sophie Lionnet, describing a frightened girl.


She gave the girl 50 pounds a week, plus "extras", and had "never stopped paying," she insisted.

https://www.24heures.ch/monde/faits-divers/reconnait-violente-jeune-fille/story/10174886

 

[Legally Bland]

A fashion designer told how her partner waterboarded and killed her French nanny then laughed as he tried to put her into a suitcase to see if a body would fit.

Sabrina Kouider, 35, said she had a “panic attack” after waking up to find Sophie Lionnet dead next to Ouissem Medouni in September last year.

...

Her partner then became “aggressive” when Ms Lionnet told him Mr Walton had spiked his drink and sexually abused him, the Old Bailey heard.

He had stripped off to his underpants and made Ms Lionnet put her hands on his body to demonstrate where he had been touched, the court heard.


https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...-and-killed-french-nanny/#8kPEPHsrsFm27v4I.99

 

[Alice253]

SMH, does she really think anyone is going to believe anything she has to say?

Sent from my Z798BL using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&amp]She said: “To be honest I was really, really tired. I did not sleep for a couple of days. I did not hear anything when I lay down. When I woke up I saw Sam standing next to the body.”

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]“I was thinking it’s just a bad dream. I started hitting myself. Sam was holding his head. I told him we should probably call (999) and he said, not yet.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“I was scared of him. I was scared of everything. I felt he was so strange.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“He tried to put me in the suitcase to see if the body would fit in. I was shaking and crying and he was just laughing.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
Kouider told jurors she prepared the barbecue and put leaves and clothes on the bonfire to burn the body in the suitcase.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Icah Peart QC, defending, asked: “Did you light either the barbecue or the fire which Sophie’s body went on?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]She replied: “I just helped but I did not put it on. As soon as it started I left. I was not feeling well and he told me: ‘You’re not going nowhere.'”

http://www.borehamwoodtimes.co.uk/n...partner_waterboarded_and_killed_French_nanny/
[/FONT]

 

[janeh]

A great story teller!

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

I think if I was a juror I would give up trying to find the truth of what exactly happened in those final days, not being able to believe either of them. But I would feel completely comfortable convicting them both of murder, hands on or not. The events that they were both aware of, whether it was one or both,were so serious that both of them knew it could lead to death. Add to that they already had the confession on tape and they still continued with the violence that led to her death, so the only motive must have been intent to kill her at that stage. This was not manslaughter.

 

[janeh]

Spot on. I don't think there is much chance of getting to the bottom of this. They are both fighting for their freedom, or at least a minimul prison sentence. Both of their actions were dangerous and like you say they had the confession to take to the police.

I think if I was a juror I would give up trying to find the truth of what exactly happened in those final days, not being able to believe either of them. But I would feel completely comfortable convicting them both of murder, hands on or not. The events that they were both aware of, whether it was one or both,were so serious that both of them knew it could lead to death. Add to that they already had the confession on tape and they still continued with the violence that led to her death, so the only motive must have been intent to kill her at that stage. This was not manslaughter.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

 

[Elainera]

I think if I was a juror I would give up trying to find the truth of what exactly happened in those final days, not being able to believe either of them. But I would feel completely comfortable convicting them both of murder, hands on or not. The events that they were both aware of, whether it was one or both,were so serious that both of them knew it could lead to death. Add to that they already had the confession on tape and they still continued with the violence that led to her death, so the only motive must have been intent to kill her at that stage. This was not manslaughter.

I agree. I believe her less than him but am I sure? No not at all. As I said before they are both murderers in my eyes.

Will be interesting to see what the jury makes of it. They see them, they hear them, who had a stronger impact on them, who was more convincing? The whole story is such a mess, I don't envy them (jury) at all.

 

[Tortoise]

Remember the case of Sadie Hartley? Sarah Williams was sentenced to 30 years for stabbing her to death, and her accomplice Katrina Walsh who didn't go to the house but was aware of the plan was sentenced to 25 years. Knowledge is sufficient to convict.

 

[michelle230]

IMO he will be a codependent personality. Which means that SK with her PD would have treated him very badly and he couldn't extract himself from the relationship - his self worth was in her hands. I say couldn't, meaning he was dependent on her love. When Sophie came along and SK shifted her focus onto victimizing her, (as well as MK) he may have felt some relief from not being the baddie in SK's life - so it raised him in SK's eyes to help her and join in with victimizing Sophie. He derived benefit from having a new victim in SK's life.

It doesn't excuse him, or either of them, but this was a toxic relationship of the highest order. There is a lot of information about codependents in relationships with BPD sufferers. He has to have had issues himself to have endured a highly dysfunctional relationship with her for so long.

It would be very interesting if after the trial there is a professional psychological evaluation. Perhaps they will prepare one for sentencing.

MOO.

Agree with this 100%

 

[Elainera]

Remember the case of Sadie Hartley? Sarah Williams was sentenced to 30 years for stabbing her to death, and her accomplice Katrina Walsh who didn't go to the house but was aware of the plan was sentenced to 25 years. Knowledge is sufficient to convict.

But here, both claim they were asleep when the other killed Sophie. How do you prove someone knew something? It's tricky.

 

[michelle230]

Peart questioning SK on the other two occasions (she has had to admit to!!) of hitting Sophie...
SK saw her going through her "documents" (letters from the benefits/disability being the only "documents" I can imagine SK had :sick: ) so she pushed her. K witnessed this. SK said, (with a straight face) that she doesn`t condone violence. Not even with K at school (see my past references which make a mockery of that statement). Shortly after this was the Lavander Police station visit, followed immediately by dragging Sophie around for the house search! Interesting to note that it was given in evidence that two houses were approached and the owners questioned by SK and/ OM, yet when interviewed the two owners said they had never been approached at all and had never met any of them.

The next time she assaulted Sophie was given in Nicole`s statement. This was on Sports Day - 12/7/2017. Apparently Nicole had told SK that G had complained to the teacher about having had no breakfast that day. At home, SK remonstated with Sophie, saying she was sick of her lies. Sophie was crying. SK said she pushed her. N was present. She said that Sophie ended up on the floor (SK said she "fell over the bin")
It was this incident that Nicole gave evidence about fearing for Sophie (being kicked/hit by a chair by SK which SK denied). Instead SK tried to smear Nicole by talking about her boyfriends/she raided SK`s fridge/she interfered and various other little, nasty digs.
Steven Brown (friend of Nicole) said in his earlier evidence that the two occasions he had been in SK`s home, he witnessed SK shouting at Sophie. On one occasion apparently SK said she was waiting for a film producer to come to dinner . SK responded to his statement by stating he only said this because he was Nicole`s friend! Her responses regarding Nicole were littered with, "She`s not normal. It wasn`t normal behaviour"......(OK, SK - and of course you would know!)
When questioned about paying Sophie, SK said that towards the end Sophie had said not to give her any more money (pay her!!) until she returned back to France!
SK sent a very short video (spy camera used) of Sophie. She said Nicole had asked her to do this. When questioned as to why she was spying on Sophie, her reply was, "She was hitting G".
SK admitted (had to!) to hitting K with a golf club - she said it was a child`s club - because K was hitting G and G was bleeding.
TBC

 

[michelle230]

Note - All the time SK was on the stand, the medic from St John`s ambulance was sitting directly behind her. There was also an extra person in attendance in the dock, alongside the appropriate adult, as last week. Still don`t know who it is but getting pretty overcrowded both in the dock, and by the witness stand!

 

[Legally Bland]

When I'm reading this I keep forgetting this is actually SK's defence.

 

[michelle230]

In evidence SK was said to have hit K with both a broom and a crutch. She denied both.

Sophie escaped from the abuse for a few days, going to stay with Nicole from Thursday through to Monday - can`t remember the dates - until SK dragged her back. SK made out she had originally told Sophie to go and help out Nicole for a few hours i.e. making out that * she * had asked Sophie to go there, rather than the truth that Sophie had run away from their home and escalating violence towards her.
Michael, the man from the fish and chip shop who gave evidence - SK said that Sophie was sleeping with him! SK, Sophie and Michael had some sort of meeting in Costa, then after that SK and Sophie went to look for the house again.
SK version of the night of the murder is confusing.
Apparently OM got a saucepan and towel and kept putting Sophie`s head into the saucepan, wanting to know where the phone was. There was something about the phone being behind a washing machine and Sophie falling over the washing machine. OM and Sophie somehow ended up in the bathroom where OM continued to put Sophie`s head in the saucepan and the towel as well...sorry totally confusing I know...
Story now changes from K waking up, to both children waking up and SK taking them into her bedroom. K asked her to stay with them and she fell asleep as she was very tired and hadn`t been sleeping well. Next thing she wakes up to find OM doing CPR on Sophie.
Interesting development in the evidence about the children. G, suddenly being included here is very convenient. It means that SK was busy elsewhere and with both children in her bedroom. It also absolves her of putting the body of Sophie onto the bunk bed in the room where at least one child was still sleeping. OM said to SK, "What have I done? She was driving me crazy".

SK didn`t know what to do - because she didn`t want OM to go to prison, so she lay on the bed...She was scared, she panicked, she "had never been in this situation before", (this last protestation was said repeatedly when asked and questioned about her reactions/not calling the police etc). Yada, yada,yada. She also said she was told that if OM went to prison, then MW and his friends would hurt the family. Yes - she really did say that.
All through that part of the evidence, her voice was shaky, trembling, on the verge of breaking. To very poor - almost toe curling - effect.
I think if it wasn`t such a tragic situation, it would have been difficult not to laugh out loud at her pathetic acting.
I think, to be honest, that everyone in that court, particularly the judge, was making an almighty effort to humour her, in the light of her obvious lies and bizarre behaviour. Though I`m sure in her mind, she is very pleased with herself and thinks she`s done a great job.
I think the judge is not asking to confirm too much detail or trying to delve too much into the bizarre evidence because SK will fall on her own sword.
He just wants the case concluded now rather than listen to hours of "evidence" that does not make sense and does not stack up.

10.30 start tomorrow.

 

[michelle230]

But here, both claim they were asleep when the other killed Sophie. How do you prove someone knew something? It's tricky.

Because each one "woke up" and found the other by a dead body saying, "What have I done?"

 

[janeh]

Thank you again for the updates Michelle. On the one hand I don't envy you listening to this BS every day, but on the other I wish that I lived closer to the court, so that I could attend myself and see this amazing actress at work.

In evidence SK was said to have hit K with both a broom and a crutch. She denied both.

Sophie escaped from the abuse for a few days, going to stay with Nicole from Thursday through to Monday - can`t remember the dates - until SK dragged her back. SK made out she had originally told Sophie to go and help out Nicole for a few hours i.e. making out that * she * had asked Sophie to go there, rather than the truth that Sophie had run away from their home and escalating violence towards her.
Michael, the man from the fish and chip shop who gave evidence - SK said that Sophie was sleeping with him! SK, Sophie and Michael had some sort of meeting in Costa, then after that SK and Sophie went to look for the house again.
SK version of the night of the murder is confusing.
Apparently OM got a saucepan and towel and kept putting Sophie`s head into the saucepan, wanting to know where the phone was. There was something about the phone being behind a washing machine and Sophie falling over the washing machine. OM and Sophie somehow ended up in the bathroom where OM continued to put Sophie`s head in the saucepan and the towel as well...sorry totally confusing I know...
Story now changes from K waking up, to both children waking up and SK taking them into her bedroom. K asked her to stay with them and she fell asleep as she was very tired and hadn`t been sleeping well. Next thing she wakes up to find OM doing CPR on Sophie.
Interesting development in the evidence about the children. G, suddenly being included here is very convenient. It means that SK was busy elsewhere and with both children in her bedroom. It also absolves her of putting the body of Sophie onto the bunk bed in the room where at least one child was still sleeping. OM said to SK, "What have I done? She was driving me crazy".

SK didn`t know what to do - because she didn`t want OM to go to prison, so she lay on the bed...She was scared, she panicked, she "had never been in this situation before", (this last protestation was said repeatedly when asked and questioned about her reactions/not calling the police etc). Yada, yada,yada. She also said she was told that if OM went to prison, then MW and his friends would hurt the family. Yes - she really did say that.
All through that part of the evidence, her voice was shaky, trembling, on the verge of breaking. To very poor - almost toe curling - effect.
I think if it wasn`t such a tragic situation, it would have been difficult not to laugh out loud at her pathetic acting.
I think, to be honest, that everyone in that court, particularly the judge, was making an almighty effort to humour her, in the light of her obvious lies and bizarre behaviour. Though I`m sure in her mind, she is very pleased with herself and thinks she`s done a great job.
I think the judge is not asking to confirm too much detail or trying to delve too much into the bizarre evidence because SK will fall on her own sword.
He just wants the case concluded now rather than listen to hours of "evidence" that does not make sense and does not stack up.

10.30 start tomorrow.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk