UK UK - STEPHEN PORT, Suspected SK of Male Victims, London

[Elainera]

I'm not sure they were not interested, I suspect someone jumped to some wrong conclusions too quickly, like gay men lead a more dangerous sexual lifestyle, are more likely to take drugs or are more troubled, or something.

The report of the coroner inquest must be breaking the hearts of the families all over again. At least three murders could have been prevented that day. Were they all asleep? Terrible and very disturbing. I hope heads are gonna roll.

 

[cowboy001]

[video=cnn;world/2016/11/24/uk-serial-killer-mclaughlin-pkg.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/24/europe/serial-killer-stephen-port-gay-homophobia/index.html[/video]

 

[CoverMeCagney]

A "wicked and monstrous" serial killer who poisoned four young men with lethal doses of a date rape drug has been given a whole life prison term. Stephen Port, 41, should die in prison, the judge Mr Justice Openshaw said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38102454

 

[Elainera]

Good. He should never get out again.

 

[Legally Bland]

I don't think the judge could have given any other sentence. Thoroughly deserved.

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't think the judge could have given any other sentence. Thoroughly deserved.

I only just read up on this case retrospectively yesterday. ( I scrolled past in the news as it sounded so depressingly sinister. )

So, thanks for all these links Legally so I could backtrack. Watched the BBC3 20 documentary on the IPlayer. ... the ex-landlord of Daniel Kovari victim was very impressive - it's more than a crying shame that he was not listened to.

This guy got nowhere with the police and then even contacted the LGBT Police Liaison body and "Pink News" to intervene. They still weren't interested in his info until the 4th victim died whereupon they promptly phoned him for it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04frgq1/grindr-killer


Pink News have an interesting perspective - why hasn't anyone on the "investigating" team been suspended whilst the IPCC carry out the investigation? See comments - one seems very knowledgeable about the failings.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/11/2...-stephen-port-murders/comments/#disqus_thread

It appears to have been a toxic mix of repeated police incompetence in investigation, lack of basic protocols on rape case/GHB testing of those that have died through OD, management failures, plus a strange brew of stereotyping mixed with a PC attitude. ( Analysts are saying it's just pure homophobia, I think it's more complex than that alone. )

No wonder the families are angry and planning to sue. The victim Walgate did everything he should have done - leaving an address with a friend of the murderer he was about to meet up with. Port left his DNA/prints on the GHB bottle he planted as well as the sheet he wrapped a victim in.
Some are saying it's almost as if he wanted to get caught - I wouldn't go that far.

Like the rest of you I am also left wondering why the other men heard in the "rape videos" have not been called to account.

 

[cottonweaver]

forgot to add here's the video reconstructing the 400m route to the cemetery where bodies were deposited. Police still don't know how he got them there undetected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-d32c5bc9-aa42-49b8-b77c-b258ea2a9205

 

[eneri12]

forgot to add here's the video reconstructing the 400m route to the cemetery where bodies were deposited. Police still don't know how he got them there undetected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-d32c5bc9-aa42-49b8-b77c-b258ea2a9205

Maybe he had some help. From the men in the other videos?

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk

 

[Elainera]

Maybe he had some help. From the men in the other videos?

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk

Those are my thoughts too. I hope the MET is behind it. Why is there no reporting on these additional men in the videos?

 

[Legally Bland]

Article on Gabriel Kovari's inquest. Looks to be the same coroner that oversaw Daniel Whiworth's inquest and Det Insp Schamberger appears to have investigated both cases.

Another open verdict.

John Pape is the guy featured in the BBC3 doc linked by Cottonweaver upthread.

At Gabriel Kovari's inquest in June 2015, police were asked if there could be a connection to the death of Anthony Walgate the year before. A detective said there was "no link apparent".

Port went on to murder his fourth victim in September that year.

Coroner Nadia Persaud recorded an open verdict at Mr Kovari's inquest, saying there was no "reliable evidence" on which to base her findings.

[...]

Transcripts of Mr Kovari's inquest obtained by the BBC reveal that his former flatmate, John Pape, raised concerns about a possible link between the death of his friend and that of Mr Walgate.

A detective who gave evidence at the inquest was asked by Mr Pape about the "unexplained death, quite close to the cemetery".

He added: "Was it even considered that there could be any link with that?"

Det Insp Rolf Schamberger replied: "I wasn't involved in that investigation, but I'm aware that an incident took place nearby not long beforehand, and that there was consideration given to there being a link.

"But to the best of my knowledge, no link was ever established. And certainly, in my dealings with the investigation later on, there was no link apparent to the other case at all."

The detective told the inquest that police had been unable to place Mr Whitworth and Mr Kovari together, which might have been expected had claims of a relationship made in the fake suicide note been true.

However, Det Insp Schamberger said police had done "work around social media" to check whether the Gabriel mentioned in the note was actually Mr Kovari.

"We believe it was the same person," he told the coroner.

But when Scotland Yard detectives later conducted the extensive murder inquiry they found no links between the two men.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38123896

 

[Legally Bland]

The families of three victims of serial killer Stephen Port are to sue the Metropolitan Police over its failure to investigate their murders.

[...]

Ms Sak accused the police investigating the murders of homophobia.

[...]

Ms Sak, said: "I keep thinking this: If they were four girls would it have been different? If Anthony had been a 23-year-old girl and then Gabriel and then Daniel, if they had all been girls in that area found in suspicious circumstances I think there would have been a lot more media coverage as well and a massive part of this investigation by the police was homophobic, I really do think that."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38236324

 

[Legally Bland]

I've been meaning to post this for a while, but haven't had time. It fills in a lot of the blanks in the court reporting and illustrates what a nasty evil Stephen Port is.

ETA: Some of the text is quite graphic.
__________

R v Stephen Port
Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Openshaw
Central Criminal Court
25th November 2016

​

Following a lengthy trial, Stephen Port falls to be sentenced following his conviction for four separate offences of murder; the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment, but I must consider whether to fix a minimum term and if so for how long; in order to do so I must set out the facts of these dreadful offences, and indeed the facts of the other serious sexual assaults committed upon seven other victims. The evidence took fully four weeks, I seek now only to summarise the facts in broad outline.


The defendant Stephen Port is now aged 41. The evidence establishes that his sexual preference is for penetrating very young men, whom he has rendered unconscious by the surreptitious administration of drugs. His drug of choice was GHB (or the closely related GBL), about which the evidence was given by a distinguished forensic toxicologist. The drug was originally manufactured as a medical anaesthetic. Now, often known simply as ‘G’, it is abused in low dosages to produce shortlived euphoria: however, beyond low dosages, the drug is highly dangerous, since the resultant toxicity, can cause dizziness, nausea, then in sequence drowsiness, unconsciousness and eventually coma, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest and death; the precise mechanism of death may vary, as was explained by the forensic pathologists who gave evidence at the trial.


One of the particular dangers presented by the drugs is that, whether presented as a dissolved powder or as a liquid, it is colourless and so can readily be used to ‘spike’ a drink without detection; the characteristic taste can readily be masked by mixing it with other strong flavours.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/sentencing-remarks-r-v-stephen-port.pdf

 

[Legally Bland]

Victim A


The earliest a victim was A, an intelligent and articulate university student who in 2012 had just turned 19. He made contact with the defendant on Grindr, a gay dating website. He went to the defendant’s flat; they chatted, the defendant seemed to him to be polite and friendly, his mood was relaxed; there was, he said, ‘nothing to ring alarm bells’. He was then given a glass of red wine, which he drank; he noticed congealed powder at the bottom of the glass, he immediately suspected that his drink had been spiked. He described how he became dizzy and disoriented; his balance and thought processes were disturbed. He then lost unconsciousness; he was aware that he had been taken into the bedroom, undressed and raped by the defendant but he felt mentally and physically unable to resist because of his drugged state.

On his return to university, he made an immediate complaint to a friend and indeed sought medical advice because he believed that he had been drugged.


He came forward to the police following the report of the defendant’s arrest.

This gives rise to the charge in count 1 of administering a substance with intent to stupefy or overpower the victim, so as to enable the defendant to engage in sexual activity with him contrary to section 61(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and to the charge of rape in count 2.

 

[Legally Bland]

Victim B


B was aged 20 at the time that he met the defendant through another gay website in June 2014. He also said that, at first, he felt quite safe and comfortable with the defendant whom he thought to be ‘a very nice guy’. He also was induced to take a (non‐alcoholic) drink, which rendered him immediately unconscious. When he came round, he described what he called the terrifying effect: it felt as if he had no control over his body, he was shouting and screaming and calling out for help.


The defendant took him to the station at Barking, still in this state; there, officers from the Transport Police officer saw him distressed, incoherent, unsteady on his feet and producing green vomit. Significantly, the defendant said that he (B) had taken ‘G’.

B was not able to say with certainty that the defendant had penetrated him in this condition, therefore there is no charge of rape, just a count of administering a substance with intent, as charged in count 3.


When the jury came to consider the defendant’s knowledge and intention in relation to the next victim, Anthony Walgate, they will no doubt have had in mind the effect that he knew that that the administration of the drug had had upon A and B.

 

[Legally Bland]

Anthony Walgate


I come then to Anthony Walgate, who was aged 23. He had come down to London from Hull to study. In her victim personal statement, which of course I have read with and sympathy, his mother describes Anthony as being clever, funny and talented; all he ever wanted was to be a famous fashion designer and with his passion and determination, she was sure that he would have made it.


One of his friends said that he was not very good at managing his money with the result that he resorted to working as an occasional gay escort. However, he took such precautions as he could: he always obtained the client’s address in advance, and secured a photograph, which information the always posted to others so that they would know where he was and indeed who he was with.


Through a gay website the made contact with the defendant, and arranged to meet at Barking station on the evening of the 17 June 2014; they agreed that he would be paid £800 for an all‐night session. Since the defendant had no savings of any kind, and certainly did not have access to £800, I do not think that he had the slightest intention of paying.


From a later examination of Anthony Walgate’s Oyster card, confirmed by the cell siting of his mobile phone, it can be established that he arrived at the station just before a quarter past 10, that evening.


He was never seen alive again; nor was his telephone ever used again. I think that the inevitable and irresistible inference is that the defendant deliberately administered a drugs overdose to Anthony Walgate, with the intention of penetrating him whilst he was unconscious, which I have no doubt he did.

For a variety of reasons, which were explained by the pathologists, it is not possible to say precisely when Anthony died, but I am quite sure that he was dead when the defendant calmly went to work on the late shift the following day.


He returned from work at about 4 o’clock in the morning of now the 19 June. By this time he had dressed Anthony’s body, which was probably already stiff with rigor mortis; he then dragged the body to deposit it on the path outside; he had planted in his pocket a small bottle of GHB, so as to give the impression that Anthony had died from a self‐administered overdose; he then removed and disposed of Anthony’s mobile phone, by which he feared that the contact between them would be traced. He then telephoned the ambulance reporting that he had, by chance, come upon the body young man collapsed outside his house. There Anthony’s body was found.


He then repeated that version in a witness statement.


The pathologist reported that the GHB levels in Anthony’s body were so high as to cause death by drugs toxicity.


Later, the defendant was interviewed again; even when the police put to him that they had discovered that the defendant had met Anthony through an on line dating app., he denied it.


He then changed his story to suggest that Anthony had visited him at his flat but that his death was the result of a self‐administered overdose. The defendant said that he moved the body outside out of panic, lest the police should quite mistakenly think that he had in some way been responsible for his death; he even suggested that he feared that they might suspect him of murder.


His earlier lies led to his conviction for an offence of perverting the course of justice, and a short prison sentence; there the matter rested, his later story being apparently taken at face value.

Whether the police were right to do so, in the light of what they knew or ought to have found out, is for others to decide having thoroughly inquired into the matter, which it has not been appropriate for us to do in the course of the criminal trial.


He repeated his later story in the course of his evidence to the jury, which they understandably rejected.


These events give rise to his conviction for murder as charged in Count 4, and administering a substance in count 6.
The jury were discharged from reaching a verdict on the alternative charge of manslaughter as charged in count 5 (as indeed they were on other such alternatives in counts 8, 11 and 24).

 

[Legally Bland]

Gabriel Kovari

Gabriel Kovari was a 22‐year‐old Slovakian, who moved into the defendant’s flat on the 23 August 2014.

It is, I think, quite clear that the defendant had designs upon Gabriel Kovari: the day after he moved in, the defendant asked a friend to come and meet ‘his new Slovakian twink flatmate’, and the next day he wrote, suggestively as it seems to me, that he was ‘taking good care’ of him. There are some indications that his feelings were not reciprocated, for example Gabriel Kovari sent a text to a friend saying that he had slept on the sofa and did not want to sleep in the same bed as the defendant; the friend warned him that the defendant would want to do so.

The last message set by Gariel Kovari’s phone was at 5 o'clock on the morning of the 25th; he had not been there for two days. In the light of what happened later, I draw the inevitable inference that shortly after that call was made, the defendant surreptitiously administered drugs to Gabriel Kovari, intending then to penetrate him when he was unconscious; the overdose that he administered proved fatal.

The next afternoon, that is to say the 26 August, the defendant changed his telephone number, and then told a friend that Gabriel had unexpectedly left. He gradually developed this story, adding a number of unconvincing details; he then claimed to have heard that Gabriel had gone off back to Spain where he had formerly lived with a partner.

Using a false name, the defendant did eventually correspond with this former partner, Thierry Amodio but to him he told a completely different story, to which I will turn later.

Meanwhile, by chance, the defendant sister rang him to find him in a very distressed state saying that there was the body of a young man in his flat, plainly that young man was Gabriel Kovari, although in his evidence to the jury the defendant told the most elaborate lie attempting to suggest that although he was speaking in the present tense, the body to which he was referring was Anthony Walgate, who had died several months before.

Gabriel Kovari’s body must have remained in the defendant’s flat for some days because it was not until the morning of 28 August that it was found sitting against the wall of the churchyard in the ruins of Barking Abbey. It is not immediately clear how he moved the body, because he denied doing any such thing, however he had again planted a bottle of GHB in his pocket and had disposed of his mobile phone.

The cause of death was a drug overdose, with very high and potentially fatal levels of GHB.

The murder of Gabriel Kovari is charged in count 7 of the indictment; administering a substance to him with intent is the subject of count 9.

I make entirely clear that I have read the victim personal statement given by Gabriel’s brother, who movingly describes the impact that his death has had upon the family.

 

[Legally Bland]

Daniel Whitworth

I come then to Daniel Whitworth aged 23, he was a skilled and ambitious chef, who was making his way in a fiercely competitive world. Again I have read the poignant memorials to him by members of his family who consider that they are facing a life sentence; they observed that they had a rich and fulfilling life ahead of them with Daniel which has been stolen from them.

He and the defendant made contact through a gay dating website, called Fitlads. After very many exchanges they agreed to meet on the afternoon of the 18th September; Daniel left work early and texted his partner to say that he would be late back, but he clearly contemplated only a short visit to the defendant’s flat in Barking.

As to what happened after he arrived, only the defendant now knows, but at half past 10 the next morning, 19th September, he deleted his Fitlads account, the obvious and inevitable inference is that he did so because Daniel Whitworth was already dead and he was attempting to delete traces of their contact.

That night, he carried Daniel Whitworth’s body to the grounds of Barking Abbey, where he dumped the body in more or less precisely the same position that he had disposed of Gabriel Kovari. As he had done with the others, he had planted a bottle of GHB in his pocket and stole his mobile phone, so as to conceal the contacts that they had had the one with the other.

The cause of his death was GHB toxicity.

However, this time the defendant went further because he wrote what purported to be a suicide note written by Daniel Whitworth, explaining that he had deliberately taken a drugs overdose, consequent upon the remorse and guilt he felt at having himself administered the fatal overdose to Gabriel Kovari.

It was that this story which he drip fed to Thierry Amodio, Gabriel Kovari’s partner in Spain, adding ever more elaborate inventions; the eventual story, which he told to the jury, was that Daniel Whitworth and Gabriel Kovari had met at a party, in Ilford, which the defendant had himself attended; that with his knowledge and consent, Gabriel and Daniel had gone back to the defendant’s flat, that from there they had gone to the churchyard of Barking Abbey to have sex, that there Daniel Whitworth had administered a drug overdose to Gabriel Kovari, from which he had died, caused him such guilt that he later decided to take his own life.

When the police eventually pointed out to him that the handwriting expert demonstrated beyond doubt that he (the defendant) had written the suicide note, he continued to maintain that he had not. He then changed his story and claimed that he had written the suicide note at Daniel Whitworth’s dictation.

These were wicked and monstrous lies, which must have caused immense distress Daniel’s family. Of course, under cross‐examination this story unravelled and the truth emerged, that he had killed them both.

The murder of Daniel Whitworth is the subject of count 10, count 12 charges him with administering a substance with intent.

 

[Legally Bland]

Victim C

Counts 13 and 14 alleged rape as against the witness C, with whom the defendant had a long standing relationship, which included many instances of consensual sex, some of which possibly – and perhaps even probably ‐ occurred when C was unconscious.

It is therefore not in the least surprising that the jury might have been left wondering if they could be sure that C did not consent to what happened.

I would however pay tribute to C’s courage in giving evidence; I do not doubt that some of the evidence he gave and certainly the CCTV footage of his engagement with the defendant may have informed their decisions on other counts.

 

[Legally Bland]

Victim D

Victim D is aged 22, but he looked far less than his chronological age. He had some time been undergoing gender reassignment, but that transition process has recently been interrupted. He was suffering from the long term after‐effects of a head injury caused in a criminal assault. He was, in my judgment, acutely vulnerable.

He described an occasion in January 2015, when he visited the defendant’s flat and his drink had been spiked, which had rendered him unconscious. Yet the defendant had penetrated him in his condition, to which the witness had not consented. The defendant filmed the incident and even showed it to D the next day; D was outraged at what had happened and protested in earthly language.

This was charged as administering a substance with intent in charge 15 and rape in count 16.

 

[Legally Bland]

Victim E

I move onto E; aged 35, E was rather older than the others. He met the defendant on Grindr in July 2015.

As was clear in the exchanges that have passed between the defendant and C, the defendant had by now experimented with administering the drug anally, which he said led to a more immediate absorption of the drugs into the body.

He pretended to E that he was applying lubricant inside his anus by a syringe type device, with a plunger or piston, which he called an applicator. E had consented to normal anal intercourse, but he had strong objections to the administration of drugs. Immediately after the defendant had inserted the applicator, E said that he flinched, having had an unpleasant sensation of burning or tingling, which caused a slight numbing. He knew that this was not right and immediately suspected that an attempt had been made to administer drugs to him. He managed to dress and left before any further offence could be committed.

This gives rise to the allegation in count 17 of assault by penetration, contrary to section 2 (1) of the 2003 Act.