Found Deceased UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London - Clapham Common area, 3 March 2021 *Arrests* #12

[martinwatts5]

Regarding the CCTV discussion. Two figures were seen after the last confirmed sighting of Sarah. Does this mean it wasn’t Sarah or it is not clear enough to tell?

 

[juniper6]

DBM

 

[juniper6]

As she has been in the UK for 12 years IMO she quite likely is a UK citizen by now

my 02c

I’m going on 11 years and no citizenship yet as it’s over£10k in fees . The MSM also most likely wouldn’t have referred to the person as (insert foreign country here) if they also had a British passport. Jmo. Again - just a theory to throw out there.

 

[mrjitty]

No, not necessarily. Released on police bail but still under investigation. There can be many conditions attached to police bail which the custody sergeant will have to agree before letting her out on bail, including e.g. living at a certain address, not visiting a certain address or area, not leaving her residence between certain hours, not contacting certain people or being allowed to be alone with certain people, she may have had to surrender her phone, she might not be allowed to use social media, she might not be allowed to access the internet, all sorts of things. Imo, moo, she has likely been taken to a safe house, the children are being looked after by social services, she may be allowed limited and supervised contact with them. Imo they are probably not allowed to reside together currently. Imo, moo

respectfully disagree

She is not charged with anything and is the custodial parent. The children have no relevance to the crime.

Restrictions on seeing other people tend to be about defendants and witnesses.

i find it unlikely the children will be kept in social services. There is no policy logic to it.

Were she actually charged with a serious offence - i think loss of custody would be more likely. But in this case, at most she has been arrested on suspicion of a potential crime that does not call into question her custody rights.

my .02c

 

[keenanandrew]

Regarding the CCTV discussion. Two figures were seen after the last confirmed sighting of Sarah. Does this mean it wasn’t Sarah or it is not clear enough to tell?

Maybe the two figures, and the two open car doors, means WC wasn't alone? Could also explain how SE was subdued, and the ever-expanding search area.

JMO, MOO.

 

[episkey]

With the latest developments near the river I just have a horrible feeling this is a dismemberment and thats why it was a struggle to identify her. I suspect her body was too bad for a family member to formally identify.

They took away a large tool storage box in the garage when they loaded the bike into the trailer - this was when I first assumed this might be a possibility.

It's a gruesome thought but storing the parts in the builders sack / part way through the job and the crime scene on the river is because something had been discovered traveling down the river. Its a long way to travel down the river but currently spring is waking up and most vegetation that would usually restrict a river hasnt grown yet - most waters are quite high due to excess rain we have had - this would mean something could easily travel.

EW could of been complicit in this from cleaning clothing - he had told her a story about something and she had willingly cleaned the clothing. This might explain why there is such a presence from forensics at the house.

The floating down the river concept is 99% impossible. If something has ended up in this section of the river, it’s been put there. It’s a stagnant section.

MOO, they’re looking for evidence such as mobile phone or something - NOT body parts/a body. It’s not in the middle of nowhere. It’s a main route (particularly with dog walkers) which is quite open.

 

[MoreSlothThanSleuth]

IMO, sub judice has caused a media blackout about the Guildhall carpark and surrounding area. From the images available from the scene there would be plenty for the media to be talking about by now, but they’re not. No-one wants to jeopardise the trial and rightly so. Shame though, because there would definitely be some things for us to unpack on here.

Also: it’s good to have @LeopardLeotard back!

 

[mrjitty]

I’m going on 11 years and no citizenship yet as it’s over£10k in fees . The MSM also most likely wouldn’t have referred to the person as (insert foreign country here) if they also had a British passport. Jmo. Again - just a theory to throw out there.

I agree it's possible. But I don't think we can assume it

 

[pug100]

And to add, Deal and Sandwich are very close to each other, approx 10 mins by car. Its a journey you wouldn't think twice about making to go for a walk, or to visit a shop.

Travelling from London, you could take the A2 directly to Whitfield, and then turn to either Dover, or to Deal, which are both close by from this roundabout. Alternatively, you could hop off the A2 early (near Bekesbourne), and travel on the A257 to Sandwich, then on to Deal. I only mention because this is the route I take home from London.

 

[PomPom123]

So..let's talk family. Not any in particular, just in cases like these. Would foster parents have to explain to the kids the events? Would a parent released on bail stay with the kids and would they receive govt protection?

I was wondering if in this case the children will have to change surnames/get new identities?

 

[wackyw]

The police must feel they have a very good idea of what happened from the images.

The reports say that the first footage captures 2 figures on the road and the car with the hazards on. The next footage shows the car with the two front doors open >2 mins later. Can we infer from that that the doors weren't open in the initial footage?

That seems to rule out a swift abduction. A coercion/arrest theory would fit with this. He stops the car, gets out and shuts the door, presents himself as an officer, they spend some time speaking, he then asks her to get into the car to take her details, both doors are open to try and make her feel at ease and then (potentially) when there is a low point in the traffic (after the 2nd bus footage) he pounces and shuts her in.

On the night of the arrest the police did that thorough search of Poynders Court and Rodenhurst corner as if they felt something had happened in there rather than just on the road. Perhaps he parked in there once she was in the car?

I'm struggling to see another scenario where both car doors would be open, if he was moving her body into the car then you'd think just the passenger's side would be open. If she opened the door to flee and he followed then wouldn't the most likely way to be right up/into the path of another car rather than off the side?

All JMO, the footage should be able to draw a good picture (interesting if she features in the footage with the car doors open or it doesn't pick anyone up either on the road or in the car)

BiB bolded by me. I think there's a chance he was inside the car, she has opened the door to lean in (enticement, or other reason) and he has grabbed/pulled her in and subdued her whilst he, and most of her, was in the car. This may explain why a struggle was not seen. At this point the passenger door is open, and likely her legs/feet. He now has to get out and bundle the rest of her in and close the passenger door ASAP. He gets out the driver's door to nip round and back again, maybe less than 10 secs with both doors open. He may then have driven to the other nearby places mentioned to complete the action of ensuring she couldn't disrupt his journey to Kent.

 

[Sherlockhames]

The police must feel they have a very good idea of what happened from the images.

The reports say that the first footage captures 2 figures on the road and the car with the hazards on. The next footage shows the car with the two front doors open >2 mins later. Can we infer from that that the doors weren't open in the initial footage?

That seems to rule out a swift abduction. A coercion/arrest theory would fit with this. He stops the car, gets out and shuts the door, presents himself as an officer, they spend some time speaking, he then asks her to get into the car to take her details, both doors are open to try and make her feel at ease and then (potentially) when there is a low point in the traffic (after the 2nd bus footage) he pounces and shuts her in.

On the night of the arrest the police did that thorough search of Poynders Court and Rodenhurst corner as if they felt something had happened in there rather than just on the road. Perhaps he parked in there once she was in the car?

I'm struggling to see another scenario where both car doors would be open, if he was moving her body into the car then you'd think just the passenger's side would be open. If she opened the door to flee and he followed then wouldn't the most likely way to be right up/into the path of another car rather than off the side?

All JMO, the footage should be able to draw a good picture (interesting if she features in the footage with the car doors open or it doesn't pick anyone up either on the road or in the car)

We haven’t been provided with any specifics about where the car was parked. Going back to look at where the police likely believe the abduction site to be, there is a drop in the pavement outside of Poynders Court for the driveway entrance.

Could whoever did this/driver of that car have pulled up onto the pavement, perhaps just ahead of her but crucially off the main road so as not to be stopped in fairly busy, flowing traffic. Puts hazards on, winds down window to do whatever nasty “thing” he was going to do. Very much with the intention he gets spotted. This is what is looking to get his “kick” out of. At that moment her preservation instinct kicks in; she either
a) freezes
b) goes to run away
c) shouts something at him
But perhaps at some point, her instinctive safety thing is to take out her phone.
At this instant HIS instinct kicks in. If it was a flasher/IE incident was maybe hoping for just a scared reflex from her and that would be the end of it. But her reaction wasn’t the extremely “precise” reaction he had expected in his head. So acting on his own instincts now he is only thinking literally moments ahead and dealing with the here and now. He throws open his car door so chase her. There is a scuffle. He bundles her into the other car door and drives off.

At this point I want to be clear there is nothing, as a young petite woman, one could do in this situation. As young we have acute fear/spidey senses about ANY strange man that we come across. We are told -
-run away (maybe she did, so he panicked and chased her, making his own situation worse),
-call out for help (maybe she did, so he panicked etc etc)
-get a phone out to call the police (maybe she did, so he panicked etc etc)
-be complicit to any demands to avoid harm coming to yourself (maybe she did, but then he took it a bit far and panicked later)

I hope I am making myself clear here that there is absolutely no victim blaming going on. But more than that, that our instinctive action to preserve our own safety can also get us into a worse situation when it comes to coming across men in any form. It’s why we are ALWAYS on our guard.

It’s why I also think coercion into the car through some kind of “official” or otherwise means is a complete red herring and doesn’t really change anything - I think we are trying to rationalise a crime for which there is no “rational” way of self-preservation. Because if there is then what we are asking of women is to carry out an instantaneous complex psychiatric risk assessment of the man standing in front of us (is he friendly, is he one of the friendly ones that will turn nasty, is he a nasty one from the off).

FWIW I think the continued searches are merely to complete the evidential picture. Once they found a body LE would be wanting to complete the evidence trail for her belongings too. And so while they might have other locations mapped out through gps, they didn’t become relevant to the search until they knew they were missing certain items. So they have returned to investigating specific locations, either for her belongings (weren’t all found with her) or his (clothes he was wearing on the night). In think this is just standard procedure. But I’m not sure it is really evidence of any of the more unsavoury speculations here (other body parts for example).

In think this was a heinous spur of the moment incident that was massively miscalculated. And where my own speculation comes in, once this case hit the national news (which is did on Friday/over the weekend) at that point the suspect started to unravel and so started to try to get rid of more evidence (own clothes) not dealt with in the immediate aftermath.

IMO split second terrible disordered thinking on behalf of the perpetrator lead to tragic events (which were not fully pre-meditated as to full kidnapping/murder) and everything since then has been an attempt to cover tracks. There is literally nothing SE could have done differently in this instance to avoid this tragic crime. The hire car possibly puts a psychological barrier between the potentially very ordinary home life of the individual perp and his night-time nasty/sick habits. And having gotten away with it before, sees London as a big place with much more serious crime going on where one can act with impunity. There may even be a particular animosity/misreading of a potential lack of community in London - basing this supposition on the basis of her body being found in the “sticks” as it were and contrasting with smaller, stable local life. So this is someone with a literal double life. But thank god it was carried out by someone with so little cunning post-event and that she was found so whoever did this can be caught.

 

[brownbread]

The police must feel they have a very good idea of what happened from the images.

The reports say that the first footage captures 2 figures on the road and the car with the hazards on. The next footage shows the car with the two front doors open >2 mins later. Can we infer from that that the doors weren't open in the initial footage?

That seems to rule out a swift abduction. A coercion/arrest theory would fit with this. He stops the car, gets out and shuts the door, presents himself as an officer, they spend some time speaking, he then asks her to get into the car to take her details, both doors are open to try and make her feel at ease and then (potentially) when there is a low point in the traffic (after the 2nd bus footage) he pounces and shuts her in.

On the night of the arrest the police did that thorough search of Poynders Court and Rodenhurst corner as if they felt something had happened in there rather than just on the road. Perhaps he parked in there once she was in the car?

I'm struggling to see another scenario where both car doors would be open, if he was moving her body into the car then you'd think just the passenger's side would be open. If she opened the door to flee and he followed then wouldn't the most likely way to be right up/into the path of another car rather than off the side?

All JMO, the footage should be able to draw a good picture (interesting if she features in the footage with the car doors open or it doesn't pick anyone up either on the road or in the car)

I am also of the opinion that something like this is most likely given that whatever happened seems to have taken place over at least 3 minutes.

I also wonder if she could have been convinced to travel in the car on the basis of having to go to a police station to complete paperwork etc.

I think it is possible that Sarah’s visit to her friend could have been a breach of lockdown rules - I say this not to blame Sarah *at all* for anything but that she may well have been aware that she had broken the rules, immediately making her more anxious and compliant in the face of questioning by someone who said they were a police officer, than she might otherwise have been.

That is just my speculation of course and has no bearing on the case other than it may have reduced the need for there to be some kind of force. If her mind was immediately focussed on ‘do admit I’ve been to a friends house or pretend I am just out for a walk?’ she would be less likely to question ‘who is this person, can I trust them?’

 

[GML1981]

I wonder if The accused could have used the car door to incapacitate SE? While SE was walking past the hire car (space would have been limited if he was parked on the pavement) then flung the door open to hit her and knock her off her feet/wind her? With SE stunned or in pain he could have pretended to be apologetic, guided her into the passenger seat with the guise of helping her, then checking he hadn’t been seen, shut the door and drove off.
This would have taken some planning to get the timing right but perhaps he saw her approaching in the car mirrors? Just my own thoughts and musings.

 

[Vera_dci]

With all the discussion regarding the abduction I thought it would be worth mentioning the case of Joseph McCann - he was able to kidnap a number of women, some even during the day. His MO was threatening the women with a knife.

Joseph McCann trial: ‘serial rapist’ targeted victims aged 11 to 71, court told

 

[Legal]

Just a thought about why someone may be charged with assisting an offender before they had been questioned - perhaps the cctv showed that the perpetrator went straight home after the abduction so still had SE with him in the car. Especially as neighbours were asked if they'd seen her 2 days later. JMO

 

[wackyw]

We haven’t been provided with any specifics about where the car was parked. Going back to look at where the police likely believe the abduction site to be, there is a drop in the pavement outside of Poynders Court for the driveway entrance.

Could whoever did this/driver of that car have pulled up onto the pavement, perhaps just ahead of her but crucially off the main road so as not to be stopped in fairly busy, flowing traffic. Puts hazards on, winds down window to do whatever nasty “thing” he was going to do. Very much with the intention he gets spotted. This is what is looking to get his “kick” out of. At that moment her preservation instinct kicks in; she either
a) freezes
b) goes to run away
c) shouts something at him
But perhaps at some point, her instinctive safety thing is to take out her phone.
At this instant HIS instinct kicks in. If it was a flasher/IE incident was maybe hoping for just a scared reflex from her and that would be the end of it. But her reaction wasn’t the extremely “precise” reaction he had expected in his head. So acting on his own instincts now he is only thinking literally moments ahead and dealing with the here and now. He throws open his car door so chase her. There is a scuffle. He bundles her into the other car door and drives off.

At this point I want to be clear there is nothing, as a young petite woman, one could do in this situation. As young we have acute fear/spidey senses about ANY strange man that we come across. We are told -
-run away (maybe she did, so he panicked and chased her, making his own situation worse),
-call out for help (maybe she did, so he panicked etc etc)
-get a phone out to call the police (maybe she did, so he panicked etc etc)
-be complicit to any demands to avoid harm coming to yourself (maybe she did, but then he took it a bit far and panicked later)

I hope I am making myself clear here that there is absolutely no victim blaming going on. But more than that, that our instinctive action to preserve our own safety can also get us into a worse situation when it comes to coming across men in any form. It’s why we are ALWAYS on our guard.

It’s why I also think coercion into the car through some kind of “official” or otherwise means is a complete red herring and doesn’t really change anything - I think we are trying to rationalise a crime for which there is no “rational” way of self-preservation. Because if there is then what we are asking of women is to carry out an instantaneous complex psychiatric risk assessment of the man standing in front of us (is he friendly, is he one of the friendly ones that will turn nasty, is he a nasty one from the off).

FWIW I think the continued searches are merely to complete the evidential picture. Once they found a body LE would be wanting to complete the evidence trail for her belongings too. And so while they might have other locations mapped out through gps, they didn’t become relevant to the search until they knew they were missing certain items. So they have returned to investigating specific locations, either for her belongings (weren’t all found with her) or his (clothes he was wearing on the night). In think this is just standard procedure. But I’m not sure it is really evidence of any of the more unsavoury speculations here (other body parts for example).

In think this was a heinous spur of the moment incident that was massively miscalculated. And where my own speculation comes in, once this case hit the national news (which is did on Friday/over the weekend) at that point the suspect started to unravel and so started to try to get rid of more evidence (own clothes) not dealt with in the immediate aftermath.

IMO split second terrible disordered thinking on behalf of the perpetrator lead to tragic events (which were not fully pre-meditated as to full kidnapping/murder) and everything since then has been an attempt to cover tracks. There is literally nothing SE could have done differently in this instance to avoid this tragic crime. The hire car possibly puts a psychological barrier between the potentially very ordinary home life of the individual perp and his night-time nasty/sick habits. And having gotten away with it before, sees London as a big place with much more serious crime going on where one can act with impunity. There may even be a particular animosity/misreading of a potential lack of community in London - basing this supposition on the basis of her body being found in the “sticks” as it were and contrasting with smaller, stable local life. So this is someone with a literal double life. But thank god it was carried out by someone with so little cunning post-event and that she was found so whoever did this can be caught.

Excellent post. I also think it is more likely something escalated from IE/mental breakdown to kidnap/murder within seconds and "out of control".

 

[don74]

respectfully disagree

She is not charged with anything and is the custodial parent. The children have no relevance to the crime.

Restrictions on seeing other people tend to be about defendants and witnesses.

i find it unlikely the children will be kept in social services. There is no policy logic to it.

Were she actually charged with a serious offence - i think loss of custody would be more likely. But in this case, at most she has been arrested on suspicion of a potential crime that does not call into question her custody rights.

my .02c

No worries mrjitty. It could be no restrictions, lots of restrictions, or somewhere in between. We just don't know so we are all speculating. May still be in a safe house though (with or without the kids) due to the publicity generated and anger many people are feeling. Doubt she'd want to be near home to face that.
Agree that might not be part of the bail conditions either, might just have been offered to her and she could choose to leave at any time.

 

[Dadalorian]

BiB bolded by me. I think there's a chance he was inside the car, she has opened the door to lean in (enticement, or other reason) and he has grabbed/pulled her in and subdued her whilst he, and most of her, was in the car. This may explain why a struggle was not seen. At this point the passenger door is open, and likely her legs/feet. He now has to get out and bundle the rest of her in and close the passenger door ASAP. He gets out the driver's door to nip round and back again, maybe less than 10 secs with both doors open. He may then have driven to the other nearby places mentioned to complete the action of ensuring she couldn't disrupt his journey to Kent.

The first bus CCTV says they caught 2 figures though so doubtful

 

[martinwatts5]

I am also of the opinion that something like this is most likely given that whatever happened seems to have taken place over at least 3 minutes.

I also wonder if she could have been convinced to travel in the car on the basis of having to go to a police station to complete paperwork etc.

I think it is possible that Sarah’s visit to her friend could have been a breach of lockdown rules - I say this not to blame Sarah *at all* for anything but that she may well have been aware that she had broken the rules, immediately making her more anxious and compliant in the face of questioning by someone who said they were a police officer, than she might otherwise have been.

That is just my speculation of course and has no bearing on the case other than it may have reduced the need for there to be some kind of force. If her mind was immediately focussed on ‘do admit I’ve been to a friends house or pretend I am just out for a walk?’ she would be less likely to question ‘who is this person, can I trust them?’

The 3 minute gap seems important. If they were out of the car for 3 minutes or over you would expect more sightings. My thought is that both were in the car when the open doors were seen but it is difficult to explain why both doors were open.