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

New Posts

Just quickly for anyone thinking of coming tomorrow - prosecuter will be about another 1-1 and a half hours tomorrow, then the defence speech starts (unsure which one!)
SK was given a "red card" today by judge as cried loudly and called out when accused of murdering Sophie during summing up. We had to stop because of it but she was told this is her last warning.
 
Sounds like she thinks she convinced the prosecutor she is innocent with all her promises. :D
 
What do you think Michelle, after hearing them both - both guilty or one of them?
 
"The defendants made a truly odd couple. [...]

"But, as far as this trial is concerned, the point that really matters is that together they were a truly toxic combination." [...]

He added: "Walton is a wealthy man - and good luck to him for that - but it is of course a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune will often be parted from it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44057103
 
Tortoise said:
Hi M, thanks once again for taking the time to fill us in. Really appreciate it.

On this point, I'm not sure what you mean ('why the judge led in this way'). I think as long as the prosecutor has no objection to the question being asked - it is usually shown to counsel before it is put to the witness - the judge reads the juror's question verbatim.

Her answer, while different from what she said before, doesn't make her case any better whichever way you look at it. It lets her off the hook for telling a different story this time, but it's not better for them to have done it twice and I think it's possibly true. Sophie was wet in the video and then she died later in the bath.
Click to expand...

Hi Tortoise,

When the question was passed to the judge and put to SK (today you said it (water bombing) was after the video, last week you said it happened before the video, SK was silent - clearly didn`t know how to answer that one - so the judge then said...or are you saying it happened both before and after.
I felt it was strange for him to give her an easy cop out rather than watching her squirm her way out of that one, but it seems to me that maybe the judge felt it no longer really mattered at this stage?
 
michelle230 said:
Just quickly for anyone thinking of coming tomorrow - prosecuter will be about another 1-1 and a half hours tomorrow, then the defence speech starts (unsure which one!)
SK was given a "red card" today by judge as cried loudly and called out when accused of murdering Sophie during summing up. We had to stop because of it but she was told this is her last warning.
Click to expand...
Hi Michelle! I'm in the US, so what is a 'red card'? That's a new one for me. Thanks!

Sent from my Z798BL using Tapatalk
 
Tortoise said:
What do you think Michelle, after hearing them both - both guilty or one of them?
Click to expand...

Yikees Tortoise, the four of us who meet every day are split down the middle on this one to be honest.

I believe them both to be guilty of the final act and certainly OM was involved in the last couple of weeks of the interrogations.
However as I said before, I believe he would not be where he is now without SK, whereas she would have been at some point in her life - all she needed were weaker people to manipulate and control.
I would say that 80% of the prosecutor`s summary today was about SK - her lies, need to control, obsessiveness, mood swings, temper etc. She was the driving force - consumed and relentless.
OM (IMO) should have allowances made - found guilty of murder and imprisoned yes - but much, much lighter sentence than her. He was weak, depleted, worn down, unable to handle/escape the imploding situation. Abused for years mentally and emotionally, coercive control - and eventually drowned in her madness, finally losing it himself and exploding at an innocent girl.
Also, what would have happened to him if he`d tried to escape? I suspect the same as she tried to do to MW (child abuse and/or cries of rape). The picture she portrayed of Sophie was unbelievable, sickening.

Not everyone agrees with this obviously!
 
michelle230 said:
Hi Tortoise,

When the question was passed to the judge and put to SK (today you said it (water bombing) was after the video, last week you said it happened before the video, SK was silent - clearly didn`t know how to answer that one - so the judge then said...or are you saying it happened both before and after.
I felt it was strange for him to give her an easy cop out rather than watching her squirm her way out of that one, but it seems to me that maybe the judge felt it no longer really mattered at this stage?
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha. You're right, that's really strange.

At least the jury are paying close attention so they'll be thinking the same thing no doubt.
 
Again - not exactly sure what I can post in public, so...

Happily (very, very happily in fact), the jury were told that there is no evidence of mental illness and the jury must not speculate. They must judge purely on the evidence they have heard. He went on to say that mental illness is no longer a taboo subject, it`s much more widely accepted and spoken about, and even if someone is diagnosed with a mental illness, it doesn`t mean they are violent.
H (prosecutor) said that MW could not be compelled to attend court but he did, showing integrity and honesty. He paid a lot of money to SK (and her brother - unsure why -to hide from benefits?), and it was only when the money stopped that the allegations took off. H said it wasn`t just about money but something much deeper. He said SK was a serial complainer (gave examples). He talked pointedly about SK`s abusive manipulation of the children and that it was a very troubling state of affairs.
He talked about the false facebook page that SK set up claiming MW was a paedo - that the truth didn`t matter to SK - only the allegations mattered.
Three reasons they murdered Sophie:
1. They had the evidence they needed.
2. What were they going to do about her - (if they freed her - the abuse, broken ribs, sternum etc)
3. As a punishment for what she had "done".
SK - loud crying, shouting out "I did not murder Sophie".
As above, we had to adjourn and when we recommenced SK warned it was her last chance. She should write notes or "zone out" (words to that effect), but it was important she was there.
H said right at the start that all the allegations were totally unfounded and there was no proof at all that Sophie and MW had ever met.
H talked about "confirmation bias", explaining sometimes people can have a tendency to process information to confirm their beliefs, hence OM stating "that`s why my arm was sore", after they forced Sophie to say he had been injected in the arm with drugs.
Remembering SK stating that Sophie had taken heroin and she had drug tested her - she couldn`t understand where Sophie had got the drugs from as she hadn`t left the house for many days (from 5th Sep I think. Bit confused with dates!) This fitted in exactly with when Sophie`s ribs and sternum were broken and was highly significant said H.
Left just after 4 o`clock so missed the last half hour!
 
Alice253 said:
Hi Michelle! I'm in the US, so what is a 'red card'? That's a new one for me. Thanks!

Sent from my Z798BL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hi Alice - don`t take it literally lol. It`s a football term when a players misbehaves during a game (a foul) so he gets a warning - a red card!
SK was warned - her last chance to shut up with the snivels :banghead:
 
michelle230 said:
Hi Alice - don`t take it literally lol. It`s a football term when a players misbehaves during a game (a foul) so he gets a warning - a red card!
SK was warned - her last chance to shut up with the snivels :banghead:
Click to expand...
Lol, thanks!

Sent from my Z798BL using Tapatalk
 
michelle230 said:
Hi Alice - don`t take it literally lol. It`s a football term when a players misbehaves during a game (a foul) so he gets a warning - a red card!
SK was warned - her last chance to shut up with the snivels :banghead:
Click to expand...

Not to be picky but, a red card sends the player off the field, a yellow card is a warning ;)
So SK got yellow today.

She's truly something. If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.
 
Elainera said:
Not to be picky but, a red card sends the player off the field, a yellow card is a warning ;)
So SK got yellow today.

She's truly something. If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.
Click to expand...

The judge and I need to brush up on our football rules :notgood:
 
I think I'm leaning towards even-stevens. I think they had equal responsibility. Nothing excuses the violence and the persecution, (let alone the death) even if they thought it was true. I think they are equally despicable. If this was one half hour of rage that culminated in death I might feel slightly differently, but this was weeks, and those broken bones...

Interesting that your group is split, perhaps the impact of their personalities has played a part. It could mean that the jury will not find this easy. Yikes!
 
Tortoise said:
I think I'm leaning towards even-stevens. I think they had equal responsibility. Nothing excuses the violence and the persecution, (let alone the death) even if they thought it was true. I think they are equally despicable. If this was one half hour of rage that culminated in death I might feel slightly differently, but this was weeks, and those broken bones...

Interesting that your group is split, perhaps the impact of their personalities has played a part. It could mean that the jury will not find this easy. Yikes!
Click to expand...

Hmm...I was thinking that the jury won`t have a problem with a joint guilty verdict. Even if like me (but not everybody of course) feels OM should get a lighter sentence, it doesn`t change the joint guilty of murder verdict. Reflection of the long term abuse and motive - which was mainly at SK`s provocation, may be taken into account when sentencing. Also, OM came across very differently on the stand to SK.
Yesterday the bulk of the prosecutor`s summing up was about SK`s long term behaviour and actions. Apart from towards the end, there was very little that could be said about OM. He simply does not have the same history or original motive as SK.
 
Must admit I've moved a bit. I did very much think SK should get a longer sentence (not forgetting this wasn't only murder but also, false imprisonment, torture, perverting the course of justice, prevention of proper burial of a body and generally being a pain in the arse) but the longer the trial's gone on the more I can see OM getting increasingly involved in the interrogations and he seems to have lost it when he "realised" he'd been drugged and abused. Those terrible injuries to Sophie, including fracturing the sternum - could they really have been done by the diminutive SK? Also I keep going back to K's evidence when he said he heard Sophie screaming and went to the bathroom, inside were Sophie SK and OM all together. I reckon by this time SK and OM were absolutely in it together, so yes he's a weak excuse of a man led on by a nutter but that's no reason to treat him any more lightly.
 
Please remember it is against the law to identify living children relative to the case. I have asked admin to delete the child's name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 221 more.
Total: 4,254 (members: 222, guests: 4,032)

Online statistics

Members online
222
Guests online
4,032
Total visitors
4,254
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,159
Messages
17,964,380
Members
228,705
Latest member
mhenderson
Back
Top