Published On: Sun, Jul 11th, 2021

Bizarrely and grotesquely, Couzens pleads guilty in court to charges not admitted to police

On Friday of the week just gone Wayne Couzens appeared at the Old Bailey (the home of high profile false-flag terror trials) via video link from Belmarsh prison (the home of high profile false-flag terror patsies) to admit the charge of murder of Sarah Everard. Combined with the time when Couzens appeared at a hearing to admit to the charge of kidnap and rape of Everard (as covered in the FBEL article, A Sarah Everard Mystery), it means that Couzens is to be convicted of a clutch of crimes that he evidently hasn’t admitted to in interviews conducted by police.

While it is very hard to process this information, one can easily discern, on the other hand,  how here is a case – to the umpteenth degree – of the public face of a psychological operation being disconnected from real world events, with the latter not needing to have any bearing on the former,  and with those facilitating and perpetrating the travesty doing it in the open without fear of recrimination. Indeed, this case could well represent a moment – and especially with the Coronahoax having been executed for over a year without effective resistance (because it is led by controlled opposition) – where a fulcrum has been achieved so that UK Government state crime can be banana republic obvious.

With yesterday’s court appearance came a flurry of synchronised corporate-media activity that all the more made the case look like a grand deception – simply because of how it would be typical in the execution of such a thing.  Naturally, Wayne Couzens’ name was blackened in text book ways – not just by old “school friends” (who may or may not be remembered by Couzens’ other class mates – something that Joe Public will never find out), but also by his wife (being voiced, whether the words are hers or not, in the Daily Mail). Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was at court to be ideally placed to explain in a statement how she was sickened by the crimes of Couzens, and how she was sorry for the Everard family’s loss – as if Couzens was representing police forces in his criminality, thus for completely political reasons. In his video link appearance, Couzens was seen to be shaking, sometimes sobbing (as told by the supremely dodgy Martin Brunt, crime correspondent for Sky news). Meanwhile

Jim Sturman QC, defending Couzens, said: “His pleas today represents a truly guilty plea and remorse for what he did and, as he put it to us this morning, he will bear the burden for the rest of his life – his words: ‘as I deserve’.”

Seasoned event sceptics will know by now that the expensive lawyers assigned to a defendant in such cases are amongst the most able at having their client convicted – in the court of public opinion if not actually at a trial.

Additionally, there was presentation in corporate-media of new information (which might have been divulged at an earlier hearing if it wasn’t reported at the time), and it consisted of the circumstantial evidence that is the staple stuff for this kind of event (Couzens buying this or that thing useful to the execution of the crime). There was also the emergence of new general information about the transport of Everard from London to Kent, and this involved the tried and trusted guff about phone signal telemetry  (explained before at FBEL as being unsound as proof) from Couzens device (allegedly), which linked Couzens to the abduction (meaning, perhaps, he was in the general vicinity), and led police to Everard’s body (because we might wonder how they knew where to look – although it does require us to believe that Couzens happily executed his crime fully visible to the local telecommunications network). With the alleged use of CCTV which supposedly tracked Couzens’ journey out of London, it all sounded very much as if the playbook for incriminating the Metropolitan Police informant Levi Bellfield had been transposed onto Couzens’ case.

However, amongst all that, there was no new detail given about how, exactly, Couzens kidnapped, or raped, or murdered Sarah Everard.

Instead, there was only a repeating of a list of those CCTV sightings where Everard was seen on her walk home on 3rd March, 2021, and thus the old presentation of a story that must be inferred in the gaps between claims of unseen CCTV images. And this is concerning, because Couzens has appeared in court and admitted to charges put to him, and yet the details of his crime seem to be unknown. Indeed, one can certainly be sure that they haven’t been published, because of the following, which appeared in the Daily Mail’s Elena Couzens interview piece:

The circumstances of what happened after he took Sarah will not be detailed until a hearing in September…

From his experience of looking at these things, and suspecting that imagery is sometimes collected after the fact by filming a reconstruction, the author would not be surprised if the schedule for revelation is dictated by needing a sunset that occurs well before nine-o-clock  (something that starts to occur in August). If this seems a little farfetched for the reader, it should be understood that it’s not that police are unwilling to reveal the details of Everard’s kidnap, rape and murder at this time – far from it. The fact of the matter appears to be that they don’t know what the details are  – and this can be construed from a number of snippets of corporate-media reportage.

Firstly, the statement by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is completely damning in this respect:

Wayne Couzens lied to the police when he was arrested and to date, he has refused to comment. We still do not know what drove him to commit this appalling crime against a stranger.

The lie being referred to was a story offered to police interrogators by Couzens – or so it is being claimed – that he delivered Everard alive and well to a gang of Eastern European gangsters – white slavers, by the sound of it. It was a deed that he was forced into because he hadn’t paid a prostitute that the same Eastern Europeans were pimping.

Apparently – and we know this because of the CPS statement – this is all the information that police have had from Couzens: “he has refused to comment”. And while he gave the particulars of where he delivered Everard (“a lay-by between Ashford and Maidstone… between 23.00 and 23.30”) in what the corporate-media calls lies with which to try to exonerate himself, Couzens apparently did not reveal how he kidnapped Everard. Thus, one must suspect that this web of lies about Eastern Europeans is indeed what corporate-media says it is, but not one of Couzens’ own invention.

Think about it, reader. There is no good reason why this information should be in the public domain, because the channels between corporate-media and police shouldn’t be so well oiled that the content of an interrogation could find its way directly to the front page of a news paper. Make no mistake, it is not made clear at all that this was information that was raised in any of the hearings. In fact, even if it had been, one must still ask the question, what for? Couzens hasn’t had a trial, and won’t be having one, so why would the court hear about this or any other defence? The only purpose that this information serves is to introduce a new means to incriminate Couzens by having him now cavorting with prostitutes, and have associations with criminals.

Returning to the proof of how police don’t know what happened to Everard (so that they could prove Couzens’ guilt), this extract (from the Mail) is also damning:

Today the court heard investigators are still analysing scientific evidence relating to Wayne Couzens’ own car, into which he transferred Ms Everard from the hire car he used to kidnap her.

They believe it could establish where it was she was raped and murdered by the killer.

The use of the future tense makes everything quite clear. As things stood on Friday, after Couzens had pleaded guilty to a charge of kidnap and rape, and as he was doing the same to a charge of murder, investigators still had to establish the place of Everard’s rape and murder.

So, with all the chutzpah it can muster, the corporate-media is telling its audience that Couzens planned what he did to Everard – and the adverb used is “meticulously”. And yet, no one can explain the motive for what Couzens did, nor how he kidnapped her exactly (nor even from what spot – this has only been suggested as being Poynders Court, as explained in previous articles), nor how he transported her (was she banging in the windows on her journey into Kent, or had he subdued her – and for this answer one needs to know how the kidnap took place), nor where it was she was raped and killed. On top of that, one is never too far from a reminder that Couzens perpetrated his crimes against a stranger – a random person in the street that he spotted as he drove home from work. Well, would not this then be a crime of opportunity? If one wanted to say that Couzens had prepared so that he could commit a crime should the chance arise, then this is not meticulous planning for a specific event.

Experience teaches the author that when lockstep establishment can’t get a story straight then it means that there is no straight story – or no truth. In this case, a whole new level of contradiction has been reached; let us once again let the fundamental facts of the case beat us about the head, but put, still officially (via the same Daily Mail piece) in a slightly different way:

But despite his new confession [meaning the guilty of murder plea], Couzens… has still refused to explain why he carried out his crimes, offering brazen ‘no comment’ replies in every police interview.

As far as we can surmise, Couzens has probably not admitted any crime during his interrogation, but bizarrely and grotesquely – scandalously – has answered guilty to three charges at court hearings. Naturally, and although it may cause a headache to think about it, we should ask, how is this possible? The quote above is part of a paragraph that continues with one extra sentence, and this other sentence perhaps provides an answer, if we read between the lines, as to why there is this unfathomable state of affairs:

He had even tried to kill himself in custody by running into a wall at the station.

Could it be as simple as threats? As for what this all means in terms of understanding a bigger picture – i.e. the nature of the event at the centre of which is a story about a kidnap, rape and murder – the one thing we know is that the Metropolitan Police don’t know how these offences were committed, and this is why, in the matter of the apparent crime we can see that Couzens has no reason to plead guilty. Perhaps the clear fact that police don’t know what happened to Sarah Everard should be understood as meaning that the story as told didn’t happen. That means that the nature of the event could be a cover-up. If a Sarah Everard is dead, and has been murdered, then it’s a killing that happened by some other way, by some other people.


There now follows a series of miniature inset articles, rather like the MailOnline does, for associated issues that would have too clumsily interrupted the main body if they had been forced in:

Everard’s invisible family makes an appearance

The author makes no claim that UK Government responds to this site (which,  in A Sarah Everard Mystery, noted that Everard’s family was invisible), but on Friday corporate-media finally carried images of the father and mother, and also a woman said to be the sister of Sarah Everard. Quite consistent with everything else, however, a straight story about this could not be had either. Although each content producer may have showed a slightly different photograph, each image was clearly taken at the same time from similar perspectives. While some publications implied that what was being shown happened on Friday – for instance, from the BBC, this: “Ms Everard’s family was in court for Couzens’ guilty plea” – the MailOnline came clean in their captions:

Sarah’s family leave the Old Bailey after a previous hearing where Couzens made two guilty pleas. Her father Jeremy is seen on the left, with her sister Katie who can be seen on the right

The hearing being referred to is the one covered in A Sarah Everard Mystery. Even then, the very same article contained the following – another example, possibly, of what has previously hereabouts been called, space-filling:

Ms Everard’s parents, Jeremy, a professor of electronics at the University of York, and her mother, Susan, were among members of Sarah’s family in court to hear Couzens admit murder today.

An implausible claim for Everard’s location at 9.15pm

As described in the body of this piece, there has been no new detail supplied regarding how and where exactly it was that Everard came to be kidnapped. However, in the same piece carrying the alleged interview with Couzen’s wife, the Daily Mail has produced a location for the time when Everard was seen on CCTV  at 9.15pm on the night she was kidnapped: “Ms Everard is captured alone on CCTV at the junction of Bowood Road and the South Circular.”

Anyone following this at FBEL will be aware that Everard can be calculated as being in a location well to the east of Poynders Court, which is roughly where the Metropolitan Police would have the public infer was the location of the abduction. Placing her well to the west in her journey, as this timing at the Bowood Road junction does, also places her between Cavendish Road and Poynders Court (so to the west of the latter) for the abduction.

The problem with all this is that Bowood Road is much less than 15 minutes away from where Everard set off from Leathwaite Road. Watch out for the point of Everard’s departure to move.

No phone

A piece of new information which is incredibly significant – which probably explains why it is somewhat underplayed in the reportage – is that police were not able to recover the famous phone on which Everard was having the conversation with her boyfriend. There is no material mobile phone which Everard was using on the night of her disappearance – only a representation of one in a story, although no doubt, if the Metropolitan Police wanted to, its ghost could be produced in the shape of calling records.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.