Published On: Fri, Oct 1st, 2021

Mocked up

Wayne Couzens was sentenced this week. It was one of those occasions that occur these days in cases such as this where a lot of information that was never proven in a trial is presented as fact. Of course, because a psyop is all about the show, from the Crown Prosecution Service in July not knowing why Couzens did what it accused him of because he never cooperated during interrogation (see the FBEL articleBizarrely And Grotesquely, Couzens Pleads Guilty In Court To Charges Not Admitted To Police), and so therefore by implication and by other indicators, not being able to know how he committed the rape and murder parts of his crime, we went to a complete picture of means, motive and opportunity in what can only be described as a dump of data, and tales of Holmesian effort that one suspects British police aren’t actually capable of.

So considerable was this revelation of new evidence and detection that the author hasn’t been able to sift through it in its entirety. However, he was easily able to recognise the now compulsory fare of copious amounts of imagery showing bloke-who-no-one-can-tell-who-it-is making preparations for a crime in the full glare of shop CCTV cameras. Indeed, having to deal with conflictions emerging in the same vein just illustrated has to be accepted as par for the course when the information is so very complete (in an effort, evidently, to convict in the court of public opinion by sheer weight of volume). Another example is how it was that Couzens went to such great lengths to hide his crimes by burning Everard’s body, and then dumping it in a pond, and yet be so blasé about not disposing of a fragment of Everard’s phone sim-card so that it could be found later – or for that matter, about prosecuting the kidnap of a woman, to whom he intended to do murder, on a busy road patrolled by buses equipped with cameras. Likewise, it is ours now to ponder upon how it was that police found Everard’s blood, distributed liberally not only on front and back seats of Couzens’ supposed car, but also in its boot compartment, as evidence with which to convict him in a case of a bloodless murder (strangulation).

Of course, the Metropolitan Police, through the corporate-media without whom it would not have been possible to amplify a simple local matter into the national crisis intended for it, has been able to, since almost the very beginning of the case, tell the public about the general execution of Everard’s abduction as could be constructed through CCTV footage that was said to be in the agency’s possession. This footage, nor any stills from it, however, was never released – until now, that is, along with material that the public was not informed that the police had (but then, on revealing, it doesn’t show anything that the publicised footage does not; i.e. a crime being committed).

Naturally, being familiar with evident police practice by observing the sort of thing for so long, the author believed that the reason for not releasing any of the so-called incriminating imagery into the public domain at the start of the episode was that it either didn’t support the narrative, or it didn’t exist and needed to be manufactured. After the release of this information, there is nothing about it that leads the author to change his mind. And this is important, because the veracity of everything else that it is said of Wayne Couzens in relation to the disappearance of this Everard character rests on the foundation of the actuality of there being an abduction in the manner officially claimed.

The fact of the matter is that the official narrative, almost since its very introduction into the public domain, is flawed in terms of timings for the journey taken by Sarah Everard, as she travelled on foot on the night of 3rd March, 2021 (03.03.21), from her friend’s house, back to her own home. It was always the opinion of the author that with the final release of video (which would inevitably happen for the sake of the show) there would be an attempt to rectify the defect – as indeed there has been. However, this action doesn’t acquit UK Government of State Crime – it never does – when it involves adjustment à la Winston Smith in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth. The upshot is that while the footage may indeed support the official narrative, that the narrative has had to change to accommodate it means its being entirely shot to pieces.

First of all, footage taken from two bus cameras – showing for the most part what was always claimed of them while they remained hidden (discussion regarding their timing is to come) – do not show a person being abducted. To be fair, it was never claimed that they showed a crime being committed against Everard. Now, however, a bold declaration is being made that one of them shows Everard in the rear of a car being driven by Wayne Couzens. Two images from the same footage are below. Of the first, The Sun says in a caption, “Sarah is seen in the back of Couzens’ car being driven to her death”. Of the second, the the Daily Mail says “Couzens sitting in the front seat of the hire car, after he falsely ‘arrested’ Miss Everard (who is seated in the back)”.


The author defies anyone to identify the driver as Couzens, or be sure that any person, let alone one who can be identified as Everard, is seated in the rear of the vehicle. Indeed, the pertinent issue with this footage is that the main means by which one could identify the vehicle as being associated with Couzens, the number plate, is entirely unreadable. This, of course, could have been a factor in a defence in a trial, but for the pleading guilty to charges by Couzens, which was bizarre for the reason talked about in the other FBEL article already mentioned.

The other way to bring this video into doubt is to question the timing shown on it, and this is part and parcel of the great flaw of the official narrative.

In the beginning, when the story was being told, it was said that Sarah Everard left a house on Leathwaite Road, and got on to the A205 South Circular seemingly at the back of the property, and the time she did this was 9pm. It was also said that she was captured on CCTV footage at 9.15pm, although it wasn’t revealed where, and then again at 9.28pm, this time by a so-called door bell camera. As with the earlier time, no location was given. As the story developed, it was announced that bus footage existed, part of which we’ve examined, with the timing given at 9.35pm. Again, the location was not revealed.

It’s interesting, of course, that police didn’t give out where these encounters took place – the author arguing that they would show that Everard was further on in her journey than the public was supposed to infer she had travelled. Although never stating it outright, police activity at an apartment complex called Poynders Court, located on the western stretch of Poynders Road, was clearly meant to suggest that this was where the abduction took place.

The problem was, Google Maps informed that an average walker would have passed Poynders Court by 9.35pm. In fact, the author had Everard well down the road, and east of a junction with a road called Clarence Avenue (the reader should consult the article, The Everard Murder Case Has The Whiff Of The Krypteia About It).

This was because of discovery of a traffic camera still showing an individual, who could have been wearing a green jacket, standing ready to cross a largish junction where her journey past Clapham Common turned into one through a residential area, and essentially a street called Cavendish Road which feeds onto Poynders Road. This image had a timing of 9.15pm, and it was thought plausible that Everard could have travelled the particular distance in a quicker than average rate (according to Google map – although not much quicker) because of her haste to leave a relatively more secluded area. This idea is also reinforced by the fact that Everard was a runner, having taken part in a Run Richmond event, in 2018, and although the results page cannot now be found to verify this date, the medal that she won can be seen in one of the pictures that was put out at the time of her disappearance.

As it happens, as the official story now stands, Everard was caught on a camera (not now especially a doorbell one, as we shall see) at the western end of Cavendish road, which would make her very slow according to the Google Maps average walking speed, except for the fact that the official narrative now has her essentially leaving her point of departure later: at a little before or even at 9.15pm (depending on how one wants to read the reportage). As such, she is once again walking slightly faster to bring her to her Cavendish Road CCTV sighting point a good 3 minutes before that average walker would have got there. From this point, it would be realistic if she made it to Poynders Court by 9.35pm.

So, clearly, what this means is that a point of fact has been changed in the Everard story so that timings suit CCTV evidence. The point of fact, of course, is the time when Everard left her friend, or indeed, the place where she departed from, again depending on how one reads the reportage – a situation which exists because corporate-media is now clearly fudging the issue, and in one case, directly insinuating that the point of departure has changed from Leathwaite Road to Bowood Road.

This situation can be illustrated with the examples below. The following is from the Mirror:

9pm: Ms Everard leaves to walk home, some 2.5 miles away.

9.13pm: She calls her boyfriend for a little over 14 minutes.

9.15pm: Ms Everard is captured alone on CCTV at the junction of Bowood Road and the South Circular.

This is from the Daily Mail, as a caption under the image shown immediately above:

Miss Everard, described by a former partner as ‘savvy and streetwise’, was on her way home at 9.15pm, having had dinner with a friend in Clapham. Pictured: Sarah is seen as she leaves her friend’s house and starts walking home to Brixton

This is from The Sun (taken from the graphic below):

9.15pm: Sarah walks home after leaving pal’s house.

This is not actually a new issue, with the whiff of it our way coming back in July (see FBEL article mentioned at top of page):

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.

To be absolutely clear, the distance is a matter of yards between Leathwaite and Bowood Roads, and takes the average Google Map walker 4 minutes to travel along the route taken by Everard. We all know by now that Everard bought a bottle of wine from Sainsburys to take to her friend’s house, but unless she was reduced by it to crawling on her hands and knees by the time to leave, it would be highly improbable, and completely implausible, that she would take 11 minutes to reach Bowood Road along the A205 (which the footage shows her coming along).

And if we subtract this additional 11 minute padding from Sarah Everard’s journey according to the official narrative, it means she should have really reached the doorbell point on Cavendish Road at 9.17pm, and she should have really reached Poynders Court before 9.24pm. Like the author has always said, she should have been well up the road at the same time as a fictitious abduction was taking place at Poynders Court behind her.

Let the author reiterate: the point of fact about Everard’s departure has been changed to suit the released CCTV as it is purported to show an abduction taking place at 9.35pm at Poynders Court. Recently this site has been asking its readership to understand that UK Government is the same entity that rules in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four, and here is an example of it.

The upshot of this means that Bowood Road video has been meddled with if it shows Everard at that location at 9.15pm (and the timestamp, when one can find a version that shows it, does show 9.15pm). But this is not the least of the shenanigans.

A doorbell camera is one, evidently, that is located in the vicinity of the device on a door which visitors press to alert the householder to their visit, if not in the actual doorbell itself. The point of a doorbell camera, evidently, is so that the householder can see without opening the door.

Now consider the supposed doorbell camera picture from the house in Cavendish Road.

The first thing that the reader should notice is that the position of the camera is elevated. The author has located this house on Google Maps, and believes that the white cornice that protrudes into the image is window-ledging so that in fact the picture is taken from a second storey level. Furthermore, the gate which can be seen obliquely is at the bottom of a path directly in front of a door, which is located itself, or so it appears, in a recess. So, not only is this camera not located at the front door of this particular house (otherwise one would see the gate straight on), but it is located in a position, on the left side (as one views it from the street) of the front face of the building, whereby a visitor ringing a doorbell would most certainly be hidden from it. The author concludes that it is not a doorbell camera.

Now, reader, look again at The Sun graphic embedded above – another opportunity missed. In fact, The Sun is really fudging the issue by claiming more than one camera at this location.

And not surprisingly, reader, the fact of a doorbell camera has disappeared from the narrative when one tries in a particular effort to find it. Where the author has been able to discover mention in reportage about and since the sentencing of Couzens, it was found to be used in a Daily Mail headline (link above), and then in a sub headline, as shown below, but the word “doorbell” was never mentioned in the article.

The videos that caught killer cop: How detectives viewed hours of dashcam, doorbell and CCTV footage to trace Wayne Couzens… and follow Sarah Everard’s final footsteps on night she was snatched…

Detectives investigating one of their own as they unraveled the harrowing murder of Sarah Everard uncovered hours of footage including from cars, buses and even a doorbell to nail her killer.

Tellingly, the caption under the supposed doorbell cam picture as it inevitably features in the body of the article fails to mention the alleged source of the image:

Pictured: Sarah walks east down Cavendish Road towards her home after concluding her call with her boyfriend.

Obviously, it was too provocative to claim that the picture above this caption was taken with a doorbell camera.

So, reader, here is a second example of a point of fact, disappearing as we watch it, down a memory hole. Again, the purpose is to make the released CCTV footage suit the narrative.

Of course, we have to conclude that this footage of Everard walking along Cavendish Road has to be fabricated, because we have always been told that we could expect to see this moment from the perspective of a doorbell camera, and this material is instead taken from a wall mounted CCTV camera. The author suspects, then, that the figure in the picture is not Sarah Everard, and will remind the reader of what he wrote back in July:

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 [at the sentencing] is dictated by needing a sunset that occurs well before nine-o-clock  (something that starts to occur in August).

Naturally, if the Cavendish Road imagery is staged, then there’s no reason to think that the so-called proof of abduction imagery is any different. The author will repeat what is quite plain from a common sense appreciation of certain incontestable facts, such as the laws of motion, and time, speed and distance calculations: Sarah Everard should have been well up the road.

Now, the title of this piece is mocked up, and this is a statement about aspects of the corporate-media (Mi7), the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Old Bailey, and indeed the UK Government’s show to seal the Sarah Everard psyop into supposed factual history. Omit the “up”, and it’s about the British people.



For the record, the author is of the opinion that if a Sarah Everard was kidnapped on 3rd March, it would have been performed by a team of Krypteia (more than one kidnapper required for rapidity of operation, to lessen the risk of detection), somewhere further up Poynders Road, again at a place most conducive for concealment of the act. It surely would have involved bundling the abductee into a vehicle, and none of this standing around on the pavement inviting the victim to volunteer into the crime for all to see.

Which provides a nice segue to something else also for the record. As mentioned, there were two sets of bus camera footage, and the other captured the following imagery. Again, as evidence of Wayne Couzens  abducting Sarah Everard, it is a fat joke.

Police also released other footage that had not been known of in the public domain. The following is what the author has been able to find; it might be additional dash cam footage from a private car that has been reported in corporate-media as being in existence. This additional image is enormously useful in ways that UK Government could not have intended, because now from the two sets of footage we can suspect that the would-be abductee, in being so nonchalant, and in allowing himself to be seen in this activity by drivers of passing vehicles (we only know of the two with camera equipment), was actually there to be noticed.

Another piece of imagery surfaced showing a car, that is being claimed to be Couzens, following Everard along Cavendish Road; here it is:

While this shows in the official narrative that Couzens wasn’t waiting for Everard along the route (meaning it can’t be claimed that Everard arrived at Poynders Court to be detained there in a sprung trap, so the time of arrival would be irrelevant) it also, for the author, confirms that the scene is fabricated. Being the way they are, the people who devised this evidence wanted to show something whereby Couzens could be shown choosing Evarard as a victim. The author can’t see why they needed to do this, but thinks it could just be as simple a matter of a habit of technique developed in previous cases; e.g. Levi Bellfield). In any case, from its point of perspective, a doorbell camera wouldn’t have necessarily been able to see a passing car behind the parked cars seen in the road. The trouble is, they have decided that they must include this stalking aspect into the narrative but their options are narrow according to how it had settled on only two stationary cameras spotting Everard along her journey. In fact, this doorbell camera moment is the only option – but it won’t suit. The answer is to reconstruct a scene from Everard’s journey knowing that the moronic masses won’t notice. This is not to say that, if doorbell camera ever existed, the spot shown is the place where it was sited. In a previous piece, it was supposed that Everard had been seen in this manner to the east of the junction with Clarence Avenue, but again, this doesn’t suit the narrative.


Other previous Everard related articles:

The Sarah Everard Disappearance; An Introduction: The Strong Sense Of Something Awry (link)

Signs Of A Pysop: Wrestling In Clapham, And The Duffing Up Of Wayne Couzens (link)

Lessons From Nineteen Eighty Four: Totally Controlled Media, No Appetite To Defy And Destroy It (link)

A Sarah Everard Mystery (link)

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image