GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #10

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed. He will have heard her statements that were played in court, so now he's working frantically to adapt his story to match hers.

Possibly. Won't he also have been aware of some of her claims through disclosure? Isn't that why he had to submit his amendment to his first confession in which he corrects the day he said he left her at CH?
 
I don't believe that's true. A child wouldn't necessarily be taken into care just because of the state of the hoarding. They would maybe be assigned a social worker who would work WITH them with a view to getting mental health help for the hoarder, help and encourage them to make the house more suitable.
I would think with that level of hoarding a small child would be taken away from the home straight away for safety reasons.
 
I wonder will there be a social services inquiry after the trial.

If the child was taken into care as requested by SH that would explain why there is no sign of her in the footage in Asda etc.

I think the child was still with them after that footage though when SH@s parents got to meet her.
 
It really isn't as simplistic as calling up the night before and saying 'please take my child, I don't want it any more' and drop it off at the nearest kids home the next day!
 
Children in care teams deal with children in and after leaving the care system.

Their child wasn't 'in care' nor had been previously so I doubt it was about her. To my knowledge, Becky hadn't been in care either, the only person who had actually been in care at any point was Shauna.
Yes mrazda I did wonder if it was SH - the aftercare team are normally available to kids who have been through the care system up until around the age of 21...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
I would think with that level of hoarding a small child would be taken away from the home straight away for safety reasons.
If she was healthy and well cared for in all other ways with no concerns reported by any other sources then, no.


ETA - you would be surprised at the situations children can be in, that SS will still allow them to stay in and work with the parents towards the child staying with parents. Drugs, violence, neglect.
 
Just a theory but perhaps this was because they were already making plans to reconcile with SH parents, so she wanted to talk to them (Children in care) about it? For all we know SH may have been in regular contact with them.
It would have been the emergency put of hours line they would have gotten through to - remember they didn't get home until after 7pm

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Just a theory but perhaps this was because they were already making plans to reconcile with SH parents, so she wanted to talk to them (Children in care) about it? For all we know SH may have been in regular contact with them.

Slightly confused here - do you mean NM/SH might have been in regular contact with SH's parents?
 
It really isn't as simplistic as calling up the night before and saying 'please take my child, I don't want it any more' and drop it off at the nearest kids home the next day!


There must be some kind of emergency care team, I've seen it mentioned when kids are found home alone etc.
 
I wonder will there be a social services inquiry after the trial.

If the child was taken into care as requested by SH that would explain why there is no sign of her in the footage in Asda etc.
I believe there is already a safeguarding board review under way. I queried at the time about the review as they are only normally held when there has been previous contact by social workers/police/mental health teams etc with either the deceased or families

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Well let's hope pros ask them who called the "children in care "team and why. If Becky was asked to leave her home in the past then maybe she did go into care fo a short period.
 
Slightly confused here - do you mean NM/SH might have been in regular contact with SH's parents?

Am thinking Callista means SH might have been in regular contact with the children in care team...
 
8c6fe1cde04ff76c5896ce3a91fa0e66.jpg


Bristol Post what'sapp - NM says he knew to protect the bath from the blade.
 
Sorry I should have clarified - Shauna may have been in regular contact with the children in care team.

I'm thinking that the content of that conversation (if she managed to speak to anyone) could prove very important.
 
'I put some body parts in the freezer'

Matthews was asked about evidence from a prosecution witness who said it would be difficult for one person to chop up a body with the power saw in question.
He answered: “I had the saw with one hand. She may be a specialist but she hasn’t got a clue.”
Mr Mousley QC said: “There was not a single mark of damage on the bath from the use of a saw. Can you help us with that?”
He answered: “I was using the saw one handed.”
When asked if he was ‘careful’, he answered: “Not really. I mean like I think I made one or two mistakes.
“I was obviously aware that I couldn’t do it a certain way because I would have damaged the bath so I just did it a certain way.
“I wasn’t slow. I was rushing and doing what I had to do. It was the packaging that took a while.”
He said he wore both the recovered masks but “struggled” with the gloves, so didn’t always wear those.
Matthews then said while he stored some of Becky’s body parts in a blue box - which was later found containing her torso - he put some bits in his freezer.
He said: “I put some of it in the freezer, then the other bits in the blue box.
“The stuff in the attic was still wrapped in cling film, but I think that was the saw and some of the other items used, I don’t know exactly what.”
He then moved the parts to the shed, he said.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/becky-watts-murder-trial-live-6726636
 
SH said they don't argue as she's scared he will blow up.

Paraphrasing Uk &Eire Facebook page they've reported that pros asked NM about their neighbour hearing arguing and stuff being moved around the night Becky was killed.NM replies that he doesnt remember but that they have lots of arguments.
 
'I put some body parts in the freezer'

Matthews was asked about evidence from a prosecution witness who said it would be difficult for one person to chop up a body with the power saw in question.
He answered: “I had the saw with one hand. She may be a specialist but she hasn’t got a clue.”
Mr Mousley QC said: “There was not a single mark of damage on the bath from the use of a saw. Can you help us with that?”
He answered: “I was using the saw one handed.”
When asked if he was ‘careful’, he answered: “Not really. I mean like I think I made one or two mistakes.
“I was obviously aware that I couldn’t do it a certain way because I would have damaged the bath so I just did it a certain way.
“I wasn’t slow. I was rushing and doing what I had to do. It was the packaging that took a while.”


There we go, NM saying he rushed and that it was the packaging that took a while, yet he's also said he had to finish it the next day ( to tie in with when SH said she heard the saw). Why use it again next day if he'd already packaged the parts?
 
I am getting overwhelmed by reading the testimony from this morning, from the entire case. What really happened to BW that day? What really were NM's (and SH's) actions that weekend? I doubt we'll ever get the straight story from the two of them. Do DG or AG have anything significant to add about their behavior? I'd love to hear from them in hopes of filling in some of the gaps.

RIP Becky. What a horrific way to lose your life.
 
Who was it who said they coudl do the afternoon tweets? Give me a shout if there's too many and I'll jump in to help :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
1,132
Total visitors
1,305

Forum statistics

Threads
599,302
Messages
18,094,200
Members
230,842
Latest member
Seng Naw
Back
Top