GUILTY UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London, Clapham Common area, 3 Mar 2021 *Awaiting Sentencing*, #15

[cestmoi]

I'm wondering how likely it is that we will find out about any previous offences, or dodgy behaviour, leading up to these crimes. As he's pled guilty, does that mean they are more likely to focus solely on the crimes he's pled guilty of, since these alone will remove him from the public and keep him safely locked away likely for the rest of his life? They might view it as a waste of resources to be trying to seek out information about other crimes or antisocial behaviour, when they have enough (to put him away) without digging into anything further. I have seen it work this way in another country where they did not pursue other charges, even though there was evidence, because the one that they had airtight was sufficient for the outcome the public needed. In this case, as WC was a police officer, there may be even more pressure not to look too deeply because of the embarrassment and outrage that it could even happen.

I raise this because I, like many others here, feel what we are seeing now is the result of a downward spiral and it's my opinion there are other victims out there. Maybe not murder victims, but assault victims. I want to know if by pleading guilty, he will have likely swept any other crimes under the carpet and kept them from the public eye.

 

[Sherlockhames]

Why is it so important if he got Sarah into the car using his warrant card? It seems to have become a bit of a fixation, and going over and over and over it isn’t actually a discussion now. The fact remains, sadly, that he did get her in the car.

I think people, and the police, would maybe like to know definitively one way or the other.

If he did use his card and lure her on the pretence he was protecting her or some other pretence then I think this is an aggravating factor as far as sentencing is concerned because it’s horrific that being a police officer and knowing right from wrong and using and abusing that trust has ended in the way it did. I also think there is an argument to be made, that I am not sure whether he would reply to or not, but if he did show his card it maybe implies pre-meditation as to intention to murder too - since if he assaulted her and she went to the police she would describe her attacker as a police officer, or at least posing as one. Although I also maybe veer towards that relying on his having thought this whole scenario through properly. Which is maybe just ascribing too much cunning, when it was a level of paraphilia that made him act on specific fantasies of a scenario with no thought or empathy as to the victim in that scenario. Perhaps, if he does visit sex-workers a lot, he has paid/been enabled to act out sick/violent fantasies with limited consequence previously and maybe this was and escalation of that (I wonder if lockdown may have contributed in some way - would his usual haunts/hotels have been open and so he has escalated out of frustration at usual avenues of relief being unavailable to him?).

I think we just have questions because we are trying to understand the whole scenario, his motivation and, sadly, what SE may or may not have had to endure. And while that may not be healthy for some, others maybe just want all the answers to just process the truth. But we’ll probably never know.

 

[cestmoi]

Perhaps, if he does visit sex-workers a lot, he has paid/been enabled to act out sick/violent fantasies with limited consequence previously and maybe this was and escalation of that (I wonder if lockdown may have contributed in some way - would his usual haunts/hotels have been open and so he has escalated out of frustration at usual avenues of relief being unavailable to him?).

Exactly my thoughts, too. Additionally, if he was acting out the violence with sex workers and getting gratification from that, without consequence, for a period of time - this may have added to any overconfidence he had that he could get away with what he did.

 

[Sherlockhames]

Exactly my thoughts, too. Additionally, if he was acting out the violence with sex workers and getting gratification from that, without consequence, for a period of time - this may have added to any overconfidence he had that he could get away with what he did.

Quite - his frame of reference for acceptability of behaviour has gone totally awry. That is not excusing him, far from it. He knows right from wrong, but when it comes to his sexual proclivities his wiring has gone wrong (find this a more compelling narrative than “he’s just an evil *advertiser censored*”. If we accept this then we are just sort of accepting that as part of the human condition. But I think that then let’s us all off the hook in challenging this as a society. I believe we should be able to do something about it. I am just slightly at a loss as to what the answers are. But i think Libby Squires’ mum is on the right lines at least provoking the conversation).

 

[Nikynoo]

Why is it so important if he got Sarah into the car using his warrant card? It seems to have become a bit of a fixation, and going over and over and over it isn’t actually a discussion now. The fact remains, sadly, that he did get her in the car.

I understand your frustration. BUT, I think it is important to speculate on this aspect as it effects how the rest of the scenario plays out. Was she subdued immediately and taken directly to Kent, or was she pursuaded into the vehicle? If so, how did he keep her subdued for the journey? Did he stop somewhere shortly after picking her up and subdue her for the remainder of the journey? I cannot for one minute, think that Sarah sat in a car for 90 minutes, knowing that it was heading out of London - so how did he manage that?

 

[mrjitty]

I understand your frustration. BUT, I think it is important to speculate on this aspect as it effects how the rest of the scenario plays out. Was she subdued immediately and taken directly to Kent, or was she pursuaded into the vehicle? If so, how did he keep her subdued for the journey? Did he stop somewhere shortly after picking her up and subdue her for the remainder of the journey? I cannot for one minute, think that Sarah sat in a car for 90 minutes, knowing that it was heading out of London - so how did he manage that?

Likely a blitz attack.

 

[Nikynoo]

Likely a blitz attack.

But where? Remember, he has pled guilty to rape. Would he really wait 90 minutes to do so?

 

[Marantz4250b]

But it’s interesting to consider that all our best “by fraud”abduction theories rely on him being a competent liar and actor, and on his randomly-chosen victim actually falling for his BS.
It’s sort of hard to imagine him doing a convincing job, given his ridiculous Romanian Pimp Gang fabrications.

I think that he'd accomplish that without any problems. Very different trying to convince a young women in the dead of night than it is convincing hardened CID/Murder Squad detectives.

Actually, that's made me think; he may have given her the same story - that they were investigating foreign criminal gangs kidnapping attractive young women off the street at night in order to traffic abroad?

 

[infinit]

Likely a blitz attack.

The wording in the BBC article I think suggests not. Sarah Everard murder: Met PC Wayne Couzens pleads guilty "On the night Ms Everard was snatched, she and Couzens were seen on camera standing by his hire car."

JMO.

 

[infinit]

But maybe at some point she realised they weren't going to a police station and asked where they were going and he got nasty or just didn't speak. What could she do? At speed on a fast A road or motorway - apart from possibly try to talk to him. She was intelligent - she may have tried to be calm and not anger him and just chatted and pretended to get on with him (a survival technique). Just chatted maybe. Hoping at some point she might be able to escape unharmed.

I agree. Jumping out of a moving car at 60-70mph+ has a reasonable chance of being fatal. The process of taking off a seatbelt (assuming there were no restaints), opening a door and flinging yourself out isn't instant either. All he'd need is a knife or something in the driver door and she's in a very suboptimal position once/if she realises the situation. In that scenario her being in the front seat would actually be better for him. Only if he announced his actual intentions e.g you're going to die does a meeting with tarmac at 70mph or the risk of a knife really become appealing options.

All he'd need to do is keep it up until getting out of London.

 

[mrjitty]

The wording in the BBC article I think suggests not. Sarah Everard murder: Met PC Wayne Couzens pleads guilty "On the night Ms Everard was snatched, she and Couzens were seen on camera standing by his hire car."

JMO.

Not at that point.

I was answering how she was immobilised in the car. IMO at some point early on, she will have been attacked and restrained. As others have pointed out, the ruse may have worked for a time, but hardly once he started leaving London

 

[Nikynoo]

I agree. Jumping out of a moving car at 60-70mph+ has a reasonable chance of being fatal. The process of taking off a seatbelt (assuming there were no restaints), opening a door and flinging yourself out isn't instant either. All he'd need is a knife or something in the driver door and she's in a very suboptimal position once/if she realises the situation. In that scenario her being in the front seat would actually be better for him. Only if he announced his actual intentions e.g you're going to die does a meeting with tarmac at 70mph or the risk of a knife really become appealing options.

All he'd need to do is keep it up until getting out of London.

but would he reach those speeds on london roads? what about traffic lights etc?

 

[angel2702]

but would he reach those speeds on london roads? what about traffic lights etc?

mid she were handcuffed for example it would be very difficult to open the door at all.

 

[infinit]

but would he reach those speeds on london roads? what about traffic lights etc?

The A20 turns into national speed limit quite quickly - It's only a 10-15 minute drive at that time with lockdown.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Not at that point.

I was answering how she was immobilised in the car. IMO at some point early on, she will have been attacked and restrained. As others have pointed out, the ruse may have worked for a time, but hardly once he started leaving London

I disagree somewhat. I suspect that it took quite a while for her to realise, to be honest. I'm not so sure that there would have been some big fight in the car as I think he would have just intimidated her into silence.

 

[infinit]

I disagree somewhat. I suspect that it took quite a while for her to realise, to be honest. I'm not so sure that there would have been some big fight in the car as I think he would have just intimidated her into silence.

All he as to pretend is that he's based out of Bexleyheath or Dartford. She had no experience with the Police it seems, she had no clue where she could reasonably expect to be taken. With my basic knowledge of London roads you'd then expect him to pull off the A20 at Ruxley or at the M25 junction to head North towards Dartford if that's where you believed you were going. By which time it's too late. But she grew up in York and it doesn't appear she owned a vehicle - I can't imagine she very often went out that way or knows that area well from a driving perspective.

 

[Newthoughts]

Can't speak for most women, but - honest answer - if it was me? I would get into the car, sit quietly, and trust the person.

It's easy in hindsight to think that all or most women would think something is wrong with this, but without thinking about this case, if I was in that scenario, I know that the Warrant Card would hold a lot of weight, especially being presented with the idea that this officer is trying to protect me.

I would as well. With zero experience of the police I would automatically trust him and wouldn't have a clue about normal protocols. Where I live police (admittedly in uniform) were speaking to people during lockdown.

I don't think I would be so sure if he then said he was taking me to a police station as that would be over the top.

I don't think anyone would be thinking he was a threat in that situation.

 

[Newthoughts]

Absolutely, it's something I mentioned a few posts back. Of course, we don't know for sure that he did use his warrant card, but if he did then that is very strongly suggestive of his motives being murderous from the outset, rather than merely sexual.


They aren't allowed to wear their uniform off duty (at least I don't think they are but not 100% on that), but he would have had access to police clothing. Then again, they aren't allowed to commit kidnap, rape and murder either. Most probably had baseball-type caps as that's what armed cops use and probably things like anti-stab vests and suchlike. Any police officer could make a pretty decent shout of being able to pretend to be on duty if they were that way inclined.

It's not without precedent, either; ok, he wasn't an actual cop but Anders Berivik in Norway had a police uniform and managed to direct people towards him so they were easier to shoot.

I'm also pretty sure they aren't allowed to wear uniform off duty but not all cops wear uniforms. Tho I will admit plain clothes officers would be unlikely to be questioning the public on the street. But my experience is limited to tv so any anomolies would completely pass me by. I know plain clothes police officers exist so I'd believe he was legit

 

[Newthoughts]

There's also the issue that some of the negative reports could be exaggerated, either by the press, or by those telling their stories to the press (if money was offered). I'm not saying they're not true - but you're quite right: there ARE conflicting reports.

I go back to what I saw and heard of him in those YT videos. If I didn't know the backstory, I'd peg him as ordinary, well-spoken, middle class. Definitely NOT "chavvy" or "rough".

And since we're assessing how SE would possibly have reacted to him when encountering him, her first impression may have been pretty favourable - or at least, not in the least "concerned".

Yes I'd be very wary of anything reported in our tabloids especially from 'friends' whose narratives fit. Several years ago a retired teacher called Christopher Jefferies was questioned about the murder of one of his tenants. Completely innocent but a bit of an oddball. The tabloids destroyed him with tales from former colleagues / students. Made him out to be a real creep.

Clearly there are investigations into certain things but how much of his creepy behaviours were considered acceptable in certain environments?

 

[Dotta]

I'm also pretty sure they aren't allowed to wear uniform off duty but not all cops wear uniforms. Tho I will admit plain clothes officers would be unlikely to be questioning the public on the street. But my experience is limited to tv so any anomolies would completely pass me by. I know plain clothes police officers exist so I'd believe he was legit

I guess there must be some rules concerning stopping citizens by plain clothes police. Otherwise, anybody could pretend to be undercover cop. And what? Should I get into an unknown car because some guy tells me he is a cop??? In Poland uniformed policemen (usually 2 of them, never single) on duty in a police car can detain you. I have never heard of a civilian car and plain clothes police detaining people - well, maybe during undercover action concerning gangs or very dangerous criminals.