GUILTY UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London, Clapham Common area, 3 Mar 2021 *Life sentence* #17

Status
Not open for further replies.

cestmoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
42
Reaction score
263
I was curious about the micro SD card that police found and the report that something had been thrown out the window. Presumably this had nothing of interest on it as there hasn't been any further mention of it.

Regarding him wiping his phone and then using a gmail account, if he has any pattern of using gmail accounts I would imagine a court order could be used to access information even if it has not been saved to a device. I suppose it's a matter of any other alleged victims from the dating site or escort site providing the email contact details he had given them. I think getting any other alleged victims to come forward would be very challenging, though, given all the media attention and the horror of what has happened, I can't imagine they would want the attention.
 

JayWill

Former Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
10,909
This is very thorny territory. I share everybody's concerns about these matters, but I'm not sure about punishing people for crimes they might [or might not] do. It's venturing into Minority Report's world.
No, flashing is a crime in itself. Not a crime that they might do. A crime that they have done. I don't know how we can get people to take it seriously.
 

cestmoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
42
Reaction score
263
You can’t retrieve photos etc from a SIM that does not exist
I was thinking more about the communications between potential victims and WC. Photos on a SIM card may be gone forever, but emails etc may still be retrieved. Would be interesting if communications link with any missing women or unsolved cases.
 

kittythehare

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
12,335
Reaction score
64,156
I wonder if it really matters if sb "wipes" a phone or computer hard disc.
Data can be retrieved by specialists.
Nothing can really be deleted for good.
Didn't do him much good in any case, he rightly got the worst!
Mind boggling how much more info they obtained on him... we'll never know, probably but stories will probably start to appear now..
 

Dotta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
19,323
Didn't do him much good in any case, he rightly got the worst!
Mind boggling how much more info they obtained on him... we'll never know, probably but stories will probably start to appear now..
Yes, and they will not be
"bedtime stories" :(
 

Stella123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
550
Reaction score
2,585
It's clear that this person is not fit to be in the role they have. Its also an absolutely ridiculous statement at ANY time never mind when things are so sensitive.

The simple fact is the police can arrest you under 'suspicion' of having committed a crime whether you have actually done anything or not. Refusal is likely to turn the situation confrontational and end in you being handcuffed and restrained.

The power imbalance in these situations is vast and the person being challenged/arrested has no control and that is why the police have to do everything they can to ensure that the people given such power are fit to have it.

In relation to Sarah we still have no idea what actually unfolded when she was stopped. Did he use covid regulations (could that imply he followed her for a long time) or he could easily have threatened her that if she resisted or made a scene then he would kill her

The cctv or doorcam footage did show WC’s car passing after SE had walked that way. He could have spotted her earlier. Or it may have been coincidence that he was driving around the area and she showed up at the right time. I suspect he did see her walking - hence pulling over his car further ahead before she reached him JMO.

I think in court it was said it was thought he may have threatened her. Judge was very clear it was control and coercion via his Police role.
 

Stella123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
550
Reaction score
2,585
I like it.
Why the hell not?

Maybe we should all write to our MP’s saying any incident of IE must lead to arrest, referral to psychologist for assessment, monitoring/tagging and prohibited from parks (injunction) plus being put in the sex offenders register - which is only right - it’s a sex offence.
 

FOXINBOX

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
352
Reaction score
702
No, flashing is a crime in itself. Not a crime that they might do. A crime that they have done. I don't know how we can get people to take it seriously.

You misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't very clear, I was talking about monitoring them post-offence. I have zero tolerance for a committed crime.
 

cestmoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
42
Reaction score
263
Maybe we should all write to our MP’s saying any incident of IE must lead to arrest, referral to psychologist for assessment, monitoring/tagging and prohibited from parks (injunction) plus being put in the sex offenders register - which is only right - it’s a sex offence.
IMO this throws up a few issues. Imagine a man who is out in public somewhere, say a public park, discovers the public toilets are closed and really really needs to go. An emergency wee. And so he steps into some trees, tries to pick the most private spot he can, and has the quickest wee of his life. Someone rounds the corner and glimpses him.

That, in the UK, could result in an indecent exposure charge. And, if we proceed as suggested, that person is arrested, referred for a psychological assessment, tagged, prohibited from parks, and is put on the sex offender register. Perhaps my opinion only, but that seems utterly ridiculous and far past the point. I think every male I know, friends and family alike, has had a wee in public at some point. Just an example to point out that a measured approach to how the system needs to change, is likely to lead to more rational outcomes.
 

Stella123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
550
Reaction score
2,585
I was trying to think why he would have wiped his phone on that particular day, at that particular time, but I remember that afternoon we were all watching the live reporting of police cordoning off and forensically processing the street corner where he had parked up on the pavement.


On March 9 at 3pm they got the breakthrough, receiving footage from a bus showing Miss Everard with a male figure standing by a white car with the hazard lights flashing.

[...]

Police arrived at Couzens' home at 5.45pm but did not arrest him for a further two hours. This allowed Couzens, who may have spotted plain-clothes officers nearby, to wipe his phone at 7.11pm.

Yesterday, Miss Goodwin defended delaying the arrest until 7.45pm saying colleagues had only known his name for a matter of hours and were still tracing the hire car movements to determine what happened.


Detective describes her horror on learning Sarah Everard's murderer Wayne Couzens was an officer | Daily Mail Online



This was our timeline:

3:53pm – Police start searching drains in Poynders Road. Two police officers with dogs search outside nearby Oaklands Estate and gardens in surrounding streets.

4:30pm – Police cordon off a new crime scene outside Poynders Court, a block of flats on Poynders Road-side. A forensics team shows up in a van. The cordon extends for about 100 metres from Rodenhurst Road to Cavendish Road. There is an inner cordon around a parking area to the front and side of Poynders Court and a small communal garden area adjacent, on the corner of Rodenhurst Rd. Traffic is blocked in all directions. Forensics officers appear to wait for dark before searching the road and pavement and a bin area of Poynders Court with UV lamps, place down markers, and are seen photographing a drain and kerb. A sniffer dog is also used. (MyLondon photographs - kerb/road/drain, and sniffer dog) One (possibly uncorroborated) report in MyLondon suggests that one of the flats in the block was also of interest - "Officers were deployed to a block of flats in Clapham on Tuesday, with one property being of particular interest. A large police cordon was visible outside the complex near to the A205 while specialists combed the flat for evidence." (SOURCE). And "MyLondon understands a particular flat within the building formed the focus of the search." (SOURCE).

5:05pm – Police issue two photographs of Sarah (not from the night she went missing) one depicting her wearing the turquoise jacket she was last seen in and the other depicting her wearing a red waterproof jacket. (The Sainsbury’s CCTV image previously released showed Sarah’s face was mostly concealed by a facemask). Police say “we have committed significant resources to this investigation, with assistance coming from across the Met. I want to remain clear that at this time we have no information to suggest that Sarah has come to any harm and we retain an open mind as to the circumstances.” (SOURCE Met Police. Note - Met Police links have since been removed. The MPS announcement was reported by Express and Star here.)

8:00pm – approx. The accused and a female in her thirties are arrested at their home in Freemen's Way, Deal, Kent, the time taken from an infographic published in the Irish Sun. The Telegraph reports that the arrests were made at 8:30pm. The Daily Mail reports that the woman is aged 39. A neighbour relayed that when police arrived at the house in Freemen's Way there was some shouting and someone threw something out of a window. Police then examined the ground at the front with a torch. (SOURCE KentLive). Police are understood to have taken a memory card as part of their investigation. Detectives are said to have found the micro SD card during a search of the semi-detached property. (SOURCE Daily Mail). “it was suggested last night that plain clothes officers may have been secretly monitoring the suspect's movements for days.” “Events moved quickly on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Neighbours noticed a Land Rover parked close to [the accused's] house in the Kent coastal town of Deal, and thought it was being watched. Then around 9pm, some two dozen police swooped.” (SOURCE Daily Mail)


8:30pm – approx. Forensics officers have left the cordoned-off scene at Poynders Court. Police in forensic suits undertake a fingertip search of the grassy corner of Rodenhurst Rd. (SOURCE MyLondon. Photographs here)

Brilliant analysis, thanks. So in terms of media, all he knew was they were searching Poynders area. You would think WC must have been slightly alerted by the specific location. If they had that specific location then he may put two and two together and realise the car may have been seen there - or someone saw his with SE. Followed by photos of Sarah being released. He maybe suspected they might be onto him at that time. But didn’t wipe his phone until 7.10pm. Could be coincidence or someone could have warned him. Although we know why Police waited- it’s possible it was noticed or looked suspicious somehow. Although whether WC knew is another matter.

I assume when they say they had only just found out about the hire care, they were waiting for info of whether or where it had been traced to before going in - to be sure of their questioning and not let him off the hook.

That same night they searched Hoads Wood. Do we know what in particular gave them that location? It was after the arrest. Had they, by then, been given cell data of his Seat? Or did his wife, when questioned, mention going there a couple of days before? No info on that.

I think by the time he wiped his phone they had the info they needed (other than more incriminating evidence of his lifestyle perhaps). But it could have been crucial. No doubt the police outside had to wait for the go ahead after particular information and at that stage we’re just watching him. But - with the media coverage, he must have realised things were closing in.
 

kittythehare

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
12,335
Reaction score
64,156
IMO this throws up a few issues. Imagine a man who is out in public somewhere, say a public park, discovers the public toilets are closed and really really needs to go. An emergency wee. And so he steps into some trees, tries to pick the most private spot he can, and has the quickest wee of his life. Someone rounds the corner and glimpses him.

That, in the UK, could result in an indecent exposure charge. And, if we proceed as suggested, that person is arrested, referred for a psychological assessment, tagged, prohibited from parks, and is put on the sex offender register. Perhaps my opinion only, but that seems utterly ridiculous and far past the point. I think every male I know, friends and family alike, has had a wee in public at some point. Just an example to point out that a measured approach to how the system needs to change, is likely to lead to more rational outcomes.
t would be measured and it would be post conviction and there's a massive difference between taking a pee and exposing himself for thrills.
Nobody is thrilled.
Couzens forget his pants when he drove without them?
 

Stella123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
550
Reaction score
2,585
I wonder if it really matters if sb "wipes" a phone or computer hard disc.
Data can be retrieved by specialists.
Nothing can really be deleted for good.

I’m not sure of phone data tbh. A hard drive yes - info can be retrieved. But phones I think it is not possible to recover data when wiped - they have ssd storage.
 

JayWill

Former Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
10,909
You misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't very clear, I was talking about monitoring them post-offence. I have zero tolerance for a committed crime.
I feel that you are still underrating it as a crime. I feel that it does need monitoring. In light of what this creep has done, you think it is not serious?
 

Skigh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
4,503
Reaction score
43,882
IMO this throws up a few issues. Imagine a man who is out in public somewhere, say a public park, discovers the public toilets are closed and really really needs to go. An emergency wee. And so he steps into some trees, tries to pick the most private spot he can, and has the quickest wee of his life. Someone rounds the corner and glimpses him.

That, in the UK, could result in an indecent exposure charge. And, if we proceed as suggested, that person is arrested, referred for a psychological assessment, tagged, prohibited from parks, and is put on the sex offender register. Perhaps my opinion only, but that seems utterly ridiculous and far past the point. I think every male I know, friends and family alike, has had a wee in public at some point. Just an example to point out that a measured approach to how the system needs to change, is likely to lead to more rational outcomes.


I think most people can distinguish between urinating in public and flashing .
 

Stella123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
550
Reaction score
2,585
You can’t retrieve photos etc from a SIM that does not exist

I only know how iPhones work. As far as I’m aware, nothing is stored on a SIM card - except possibly contacts if copied between phone and SIM card. Everything stored in phone itself or in the cloud. Whereas android phones can take a MEMORY card as well - for additional storage. Resetting a phone to factory settings would only wipe the phone’s inbuilt memory, not the data/memory card - unless he remembered to do that as well. That may be why some info was recovered and why he threw a card out of the window (if that happened). I remember a link in here, shortly after the arrest I think, supppsedly a tweet from someone who had spoken to police (?) saying he’d used online dating and *advertiser censored* or prostitutes. So they must have retrieved something from the phone quite quickly. Probably from the data (edit) data memory card (not sim).
 
Last edited:

cestmoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
42
Reaction score
263
Why don't women need to wee in public? Do women have better bladders than men? What would happen if a woman downed her knickers and took a wee in public?
Oh we do need to wee. It happens in public when it's necessary to do so. I can attest to this myself. I agree with you that this conversation seems very gendered.
 

Stella123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
550
Reaction score
2,585
IMO this throws up a few issues. Imagine a man who is out in public somewhere, say a public park, discovers the public toilets are closed and really really needs to go. An emergency wee. And so he steps into some trees, tries to pick the most private spot he can, and has the quickest wee of his life. Someone rounds the corner and glimpses him.

That, in the UK, could result in an indecent exposure charge. And, if we proceed as suggested, that person is arrested, referred for a psychological assessment, tagged, prohibited from parks, and is put on the sex offender register. Perhaps my opinion only, but that seems utterly ridiculous and far past the point. I think every male I know, friends and family alike, has had a wee in public at some point. Just an example to point out that a measured approach to how the system needs to change, is likely to lead to more rational outcomes.

Yes there would need to be very clear guidelines - but there is a big difference between having a wee and being naked from the waist down in a car - or opening a coat and being naked with an erection etc. Or exposing yourself outside someone’s window. There would need to be clear criteria. But I take the point. I had to have a wee outside during Covid! Not so easy for a female lol. Thought I was in a secluded wooded place but a couple with children walked past and must have seen from behind. And I felt worried about that! Wondering if someone might complain.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top