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

[ColourPurple]

You could argue the same about taking her to the house in the first place when he was planning to 'kidnap' (or kill) Becky in the first place. Why take SH when there is a huge risk she will interrupt or see something?! I think if we can believe that then I can definitely believe he took the risk of Shauna waking up to pee in the middle of the night.

I DO argue the same about the actual kidnapping lol. On both occasions she seems to be away or asleep at exactly the right times when he needs to do what he's got to do . I don't beleive he took a risk both times. I think she was well aware of what he was doing and was possibly doing it with him where the "kidnap's" concerned

 

[mrazda71]

Can't recall at what point today or from what source but I made a mental note that NM mentions Tobacco when he talks about Shauna Smoking - I've never smoked myself but I do know that there's an art to 'rolling your own' and it does take longer (albeit slightly) than just whipping a cigarette from a packet ... I dont think it's outside the realms of possibility for Shauna to have been outside 20 mins + rolling, smoking, feeding (dry food, top up hay, child holding a carrot etc)

 

[Clio]

Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn · 2m2 minutes ago
"The plan failed didn't it?" The prosecution asks NM. He replied "In a sense yes but not completely"

What does he mean by this.......???

 

[Beesknees]

SH is testifying tomorrow. Perhaps the prosecution are keeping their powder dry....

think Pros is interested in proving SH was involved too but if he asks everything he wants to ask about her involvement then SH can just use all the answers NM gives when she takes the stand tomorrow.

I can understand that, but for example in the crime explanation the pros had to put there selltape, stun gun, handcuffs and make him recreate the scene to prove he couldn't do it all while Becky was kicking and screaming. He couldn't just enter the room and in fractions of seconds have her restrained as he said.

When confronted with so many unjuries she had from the fight he simply said he doesn't know how she got them. It is in this that I think the pros could and should have worked deeper.
Like making him carry the suitcase with the same weight Becky was, etc

Do you see what I mean? This is the second time I am hearing a trial. The first time was this last phase of JA this year, Perhaps because I have Juan Martinez in my mind...

 

[Callista]

I DO argue the same about the actual kidnapping lol. On both occasions she seems to be away or asleep at exactly the right times when he needs to do what he's got to do . I don't beleive he took a risk both times. I think she was well aware of what he was doing and was possibly doing it with him where the "kidnap's" concerned

I definitely see where you're coming from don't get me wrong. But the point I'm ('obviously' badly, lol) trying to make is that Nathan IS clearly opportunistic. Having been with Shauna for 7+ years he would know her little habits, how likely she'd be to wake in the middle of the night, how long she would take outside etc. From the murder itself to buying supplies afterwards to the clean up, to getting his mates to help him - it was all opportunistic.

 

[ColourPurple]

Can't recall at what point today or from what source but I made a mental note that NM mentions Tobacco when he talks about Shauna Smoking - I've never smoked myself but I do know that there's an art to 'rolling your own' and it does take longer (albeit slightly) than just whipping a cigarette from a packet ... I dont think it's outside the realms of possibility for Shauna to have been outside 20 mins + rolling, smoking, feeding (dry food, top up hay, child holding a carrot etc)

IN SH's statement she refers to going to "get" a cigarette and then go into the garden, so it sounds more like there were some cigarettes at Becky's house that she took one of.

I heard music from upstairs. I went into the kitchen to get a cigarette and went through to the garden.

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...tory-27967420-detail/story.html#ixzz3pyP2lHcw

 

[Beesknees]

I definitely see where you're coming from don't get me wrong. But the point I'm ('obviously' badly, lol) trying to make is that Nathan IS clearly opportunistic. Having been with Shauna for 7+ years he would know her little habits, how likely she'd be to wake in the middle of the night, how long she would take outside etc. From the murder itself to buying supplies afterwards to the clean up, to getting his mates to help him - it was all opportunistic.

If it was oportunistic he would have done it all with her out of the house! But he can't say that, as he would be asked where did she go while he was killing and desmembering his stepsister and then there were no CCTV images from her in the shops, etc. So, they only can say she was there all the time with him but sleeping like a dead stone or smoking like a sailor for ages lol

 

[Beesknees]

Don't be hopeful for tomorrow!

If he was not almost pressed in this cross examination and he had so many things to explain - we still have the same doubts as we feel the truth is not being spoken - now mind you with her how easy the task will be for her.

How can the pros press someone who knows nothing because wasn't there or was sleeping and heard nothing, saw nothing, smelled nothing?

She simply has to stick to it and nothing else.


His words from yesterday are still in my mind


"I could've carried on lying... I could've easily explained anything" :sick:

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Yes she did say she got a cigarette from the kitchen. I still think it was very risky for him to attempt a kidnapping in that tiny time frame. I also think they "agreed" for her to make herself scarce so she wasn't implicated.They had 5 or 6 days to get their story straight, to do normal everyday chores like shopping, to agree that he'd take the rap and to keep SH's DNA trace to a minimum.

Things that stick out to me are the trip to her parents with zero mention of Becky, and the Chinese food ordered in an alias name (do we know if it's the same place NM works for?) But mainly the fact that it was half term and why go round if AG and her mother weren't even there - because it was a rare occasion that Becky was home alone? I reckon so. Of course these are all circumstantial and cannot prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on their own. Even sleeping through noise is subjective. But if SH really didn't know ANY of it all, then NM is much cleverer than I'd given him credit for - pulled the wool right over her eyes / ears / sense of smell / common sense.

 

[ColourPurple]

Don't be hopeful for tomorrow!

If he was not almost pressed in this cross examination and he had so many things to explain - we still have the same doubts as we feel the truth is not being spoken - now mind you with her how easy the task will be for her.

How can the pros press someone who knows nothing because wasn't there or was sleeping and heard nothing, saw nothing, smelled nothing?

She simply has to stick to it and nothing else.


His words from yesterday are still in my mind


"I could've carried on lying... I could've easily explained anything" :sick:

Despite her saying she knew nothing they can still ask her lots of things to build up a picture... why she lied to police about being away all night. Why suddenly visit her mother that night? Why not mention Becky to her mother? Who rang children in care the night Becky was killed and why? Where she thought all the bags and cling film were going to..eg why by even more clingfilm the day after you've just bought 3 rolls. What she did after JI and KD dropped them home, was she not worried when NM didn't come back in after a few minutes? Where she was when they returned, how she didn't hear the metal ladder outside her bedroom door? If she's denying the text messages? where the attic came into their jokes about teenage girls?

 

[mrazda71]

I've been thinking about the trip to see Shauna's mum and the not mentioning Becky - it could be that reconciling with Lisa was something they'd already talked about decided upon and it's possible that Nathan could've said 'don't mention all the Becky stuff to your mum, it'd be nice not to have to talk about it to yet another person, I'm sick of talking about it' etc

 

[Beesknees]

Yes she did say she got a cigarette from the kitchen. I still think it was very risky for him to attempt a kidnapping in that tiny time frame. I also think they "agreed" for her to make herself scarce so she wasn't implicated.They had 5 or 6 days to get their story straight, to do normal everyday chores like shopping, to agree that he'd take the rap and to keep SH's DNA trace to a minimum.

Things that stick out to me are the trip to her parents with zero mention of Becky, and the Chinese food ordered in an alias name (do we know if it's the same place NM works for?) But mainly the fact that it was half term and why go round if AG and her mother weren't even there - because it was a rare occasion that Becky was home alone? I reckon so. Of course these are all circumstantial and cannot prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on their own. Even sleeping through noise is subjective. But if SH really didn't know ANY of it all, then NM is much cleverer than I'd given him credit for - pulled the wool right over her eyes / ears / sense of smell / common sense.

I agree with you. I too agree it is circumstantial but can you point how many circumstantial details we have here? Many each day for around a week. Can you see them all joined together big enough to pass to the field of logic and reality?

 

[CrazytownUSA]

Can't recall at what point today or from what source but I made a mental note that NM mentions Tobacco when he talks about Shauna Smoking - I've never smoked myself but I do know that there's an art to 'rolling your own' and it does take longer (albeit slightly) than just whipping a cigarette from a packet ... I dont think it's outside the realms of possibility for Shauna to have been outside 20 mins + rolling, smoking, feeding (dry food, top up hay, child holding a carrot etc)

Even harder to roll your own in the rain. IMO, I don't think she rolled her own, it's been stated she "grabbed a cigarette in the kitchen".

 

[mrazda71]

IN SH's statement she refers to going to "get" a cigarette and then go into the garden, so it sounds more like there were some cigarettes at Becky's house that she took one of.


http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...tory-27967420-detail/story.html#ixzz3pyP2lHcw

I think most roll up smokers would still say 'have/get a cigarette' rather than 'I went to the kitchen to get my tobacco and papers and filters'

Some things are just unsaid - I'm sure she took a lighter or matches with her too but she didn't specify that.

 

[ColourPurple]

His words from yesterday are still in my mind


"I could've carried on lying... I could've easily explained anything" :sick:

We know he couldn't have carried on easily explaining things though...he was relying on JI and KD to keep quiet,and even if they did ... phone records and cctv would eventually have given away the fact that KD and JI were involved and then there's no way NM could explain away all the evidence found in the shed , the body cut up with a saw he's on camera buying and wrapped in bags and clingfilm they're both on camera buying.

 

[CrazytownUSA]

Yes she did say she got a cigarette from the kitchen. I still think it was very risky for him to attempt a kidnapping in that tiny time frame. I also think they "agreed" for her to make herself scarce so she wasn't implicated.They had 5 or 6 days to get their story straight, to do normal everyday chores like shopping, to agree that he'd take the rap and to keep SH's DNA trace to a minimum.

Things that stick out to me are the trip to her parents with zero mention of Becky, and the Chinese food ordered in an alias name (do we know if it's the same place NM works for?) But mainly the fact that it was half term and why go round if AG and her mother weren't even there - because it was a rare occasion that Becky was home alone? I reckon so. Of course these are all circumstantial and cannot prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on their own. Even sleeping through noise is subjective. But if SH really didn't know ANY of it all, then NM is much cleverer than I'd given him credit for - pulled the wool right over her eyes / ears / sense of smell / common sense.

But they did discuss Becky.

"Mrs Donovan told the court: 'I was joking because I found out she knew Becky.
'I said 'I know why you are at my house all the time - because you are running away from the police because you kidnapped her'.
'Nathan wasn't there. At first she just asked me how I knew she knew Becky.'
The joke was laughed off, but Matthews and Hoare were later charged with Becky's murder, for which they are now standing trial.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...brother-controlling-girlfriend-jury-told.html

 

[ColourPurple]

I think most roll up smokers would still say 'have/get a cigarette' rather than 'I went to the kitchen to get my tobacco and papers and filters'

Some things are just unsaid - I'm sure she took a lighter or matches with her too but she didn't specify that.

"Go for a smoke"maybe, "get a cigarette" nah. I think you're clutching at straws.

 

[Callista]

I've been thinking about the trip to see Shauna's mum and the not mentioning Becky - it could be that reconciling with Lisa was something they'd already talked about decided upon and it's possible that Nathan could've said 'don't mention all the Becky stuff to your mum, it'd be nice not to have to talk about it to yet another person, I'm sick of talking about it' etc

I've been wondering if this is a possibility too, that they had already talked about it - and could well be that NM encouraged SH to set this reunion into motion when he realised it would be convenient for them both to be out of the house. Nathan could have mentioned it to Shauna on the day he killed Becky to plant the seed, prompting her to make a call to Children in Care to discuss? Then a few days later they actually go around.

 

[CrazytownUSA]

I think most roll up smokers would still say 'have/get a cigarette' rather than 'I went to the kitchen to get my tobacco and papers and filters'

Some things are just unsaid - I'm sure she took a lighter or matches with her too but she didn't specify that.

I would bet money that if she had indeed rolled her own cigarettes, that would have been mentioned because it would make her story more plausible. She also likely would have stayed in the kitchen to do so rather than go outside to do it. Just MOO.

 

[pappa rob]

Can't recall at what point today or from what source but I made a mental note that NM mentions Tobacco when he talks about Shauna Smoking - I've never smoked myself but I do know that there's an art to 'rolling your own' and it does take longer (albeit slightly) than just whipping a cigarette from a packet ... I dont think it's outside the realms of possibility for Shauna to have been outside 20 mins + rolling, smoking, feeding (dry food, top up hay, child holding a carrot etc)

It takes less than a minute to roll a cigarette, and they don't take as long to smoke as a ready made one.. A roll your own one's shorter and has less tobacco in it. I can't see her standing in the rain with her child for 20 minutes.