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

Status
Not open for further replies.

tallmansix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
169
Reaction score
767
Changing the subject a little on this thread, The Times today has an interview with Katherine Goodwin. It is behind a paywall, but this titbit of information about the investigation stuck out for me -

“At 3pm on Tuesday 9th March there was a breakthrough. CCTV from a bus showed Everard standing next to a white car with the hazard lights flashing”.

So they saw the cctv at 3pm, had forensics on site within about half an hour/40mins and then had police outside his door 2 hrs 45 mins later during which time they identified the car/him/the fact he was a police man and had used the ANPR system to trace the movements of that car down to Kent.

Just shows that while there is all this surveillance technology, it still requires painstaking hours of human interpretation of that technology to analyse and make sense of it. But thank god they did.

Sarah Everard murder: How Wayne Couzens was caught in a vast web of security cameras.

Sarah Everard murder: How Wayne Couzens was caught in a vast web of security cameras | News | The Times

This is good to hear about how swiftly the police moved once they had information linking him to that scene and the benefits of CCTV.....

but .....

At this point the indecent exposure incident at Swanley services which had captured the number plate of his Seat is now 10 days old and absolutely no investigation has commenced or linked to the fact that it was a serving police officer.
 

Skigh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
4,510
Reaction score
43,933
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.

The reason why this conversation is gendered is because it is essentially discussing flashing and suitable punishments/deterrents ,not weeing in public.
 

Stella123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
550
Reaction score
2,585
Take the point though - the term “indecent exposure” would need to be more specific than that or people could start complaining about others weeing in secluded public places - as it “exposes” private parts. Lots of false allegations etc. I remember a huge crackdown 15 years or so ago when perfectly innocent families were swooped on by police, reported by photo labs - of taking photos of their kids semi naked in a paddling pool or something. It needs to be very specific. “Flashing” is more of a layman’s term so wouldn’t be in a specific crime term. It would need to be “sexual” indecent exposure with “intent” to shock or cause distress.
 

Stella123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
550
Reaction score
2,585
This is good to hear about how swiftly the police moved once they had information linking him to that scene and the benefits of CCTV.....

but .....

At this point the indecent exposure incident at Swanley services which had captured the number plate of his Seat is now 10 days old and absolutely no investigation has commenced or linked to the fact that it was a serving police officer.

Except - I believe his initial arrest included the Ie and kidnapping. The IE was later dropped. Presumably not enough evidence or to focus on the bigger crime?
 

Stella123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
550
Reaction score
2,585
That is because men think that that is just a joke, giving the girls a bit of a thrill.

What the jokiness fails to recognise is there is a big difference between inadvertently seeing a “Willy” and being confronted by an erection, eye contact and leering. Particularly if it is specifically in front of one person.
 

tallmansix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
169
Reaction score
767
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.

You are correct in that in many cases data is never really deleted, it has the index entry removed but the data still exists until overwritten by something else and can be recovered.

However all modern smart phones have encrypted internal storage, so even though there will be traces of the data after wiping the phone, they are essentially unreadable because they are encrypted.

An external SD memory card however would not normally be encrypted, so depending on what was stored on that, it may have evidence, but it was never mentioned again in the evidence presented so not sure what it did reveal.
 

Dotta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
19,527
You are correct in that in many cases data is never really deleted, it has the index entry removed but the data still exists until overwritten by something else and can be recovered.

However all modern smart phones have encrypted internal storage, so even though there will be traces of the data after wiping the phone, they are essentially unreadable because they are encrypted.

An external SD memory card however would not normally be encrypted, so depending on what was stored on that, it may have evidence, but it was never mentioned again in the evidence presented so not sure what it did reveal.
:)
 

DFR3217

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
110
Reaction score
647
Take the point though - the term “indecent exposure” would need to be more specific than that or people could start complaining about others weeing in secluded public places - as it “exposes” private parts. Lots of false allegations etc. I remember a huge crackdown 15 years or so ago when perfectly innocent families were swooped on by police, reported by photo labs - of taking photos of their kids semi naked in a paddling pool or something. It needs to be very specific. “Flashing” is more of a layman’s term so wouldn’t be in a specific crime term. It would need to be “sexual” indecent exposure with “intent” to shock or cause distress.

The 2003 Sexual Offences Act already defines indecent exposure in a way that excludes urinating in public.
 

tallmansix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
169
Reaction score
767
That is because men think that that is just a joke, giving the girls a bit of a thrill.

I really think the phrase "some men" should be used instead, I certainly don't think it is a joke and I'd hazard a guess that the majority of men don't either.

And you don't know that only male officers were involved in the investigation of the Swanley IE incident, a third of the Met Police are female as is the Commissioner, quite possible that the incident would have been handled by a female at some point in the enquiry or rather lack of.
 

Dotta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
19,527
I can honestly say that I have never had to wee in public. Little girls are not allowed to do that, but little boys can whip it out and wee anywhere. And be cheered for it. There needs to be some changes there. IMO.
When this creep was driving around without his pants, what did it mean? Did he think that it was soooo great he had to show it to women? Even if he need a girl's hair band to get it up? What a man!
He is a sexual deviant.
It might mean that only this way he can obtain satisfaction.
 

Miss Scarlet

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
76
I have a question that maybe somebody ex police can answer… how easy is it to amend or delete records on the police database?
Is it possible that he thought he was invincible to a certain extent as he had friends or family that could wipe or change any crimes?
I was thinking such as the IE incident in 2015 that was marked ‘no further action’? Could there have been more that have ‘disappeared’?
 

kittythehare

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
12,335
Reaction score
64,156
Thanks for this Kitty. Red flag rather than low level offence - absolutely. Is there anything else worth quoting from that article? I can’t see it all - behind a paywall.
I already provided a link to the tweet thread of the salient contents.
eTA
Post#178
 

squish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
507
Reaction score
1,233
We hear a lot about misogyny, but I am equally disturbed by the amount of misandry that is displayed these days.

Men commit 99% of sex crimes. Women are victims 88% of the time.

Misogyny against women is far more serious than men feeling disgruntled about pointing this out.

There’s a saying, that the worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top