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

[CrazytownUSA]

Me personally, just looking at the weather that day, I would have smoked as quickly as I could. Windchill temps were in the 30's (F), with winds at 13MPH gusting to 30 MPH and raining. When I was a smoker, those were certainly conditions I would have rushed through my cigarette for, certainly not a leisurely 15-20 minute event. Again, especially with my toddler exposed to those same conditions. IMO.

 

[ColourPurple]

Possibly relevant that NM (and poss SH) have both been described as socially awkward and find social situations / talking to people extremely difficult. It might not be that unusual for them to make excuses not to see people - I can imagine a situation where they have lots of randoms barging into their house would be an absolute nightmare for that sort of person, which could explain why SH didn't question it. Or alternatively he may have told her about the Stun gun as an excuse - he wanted to remove it before police came? He did previously say that he bought one of the stun guns for Shauna.

We're not talking about avoiding seeing "people" though. We're talking about avoiding letting police in to search their house to look for his missing sister. Re the stun guns, she denies knowing about them but also they're the only thing he didn't hide and he says he didn't even know they were illegal AND he obviously still didn't hide them before police arrived the next day so I doubt he'd be telling her he needed to hide them.

Plus how would it be any less awkward to have random strangers in the house the next day? It's not even like they were making an effort to clean up before the search, they went out to her mothers and accordng to their stories when they got back she went to sleep.

 

[bos]

Thank you to those who have copied tweets across today - I've been out most of the day (in Bristol actually) and whilst I could read a summary on a news site, I do like to see exactly what has been said without having to trawl through individual Twitter accounts.:cheers:

 

[ColourPurple]

I've never smoked but I have let my kids play in the rain and the snow and all weathers ... my 6 year old son loves nothing more than running outside to dance in pouring rain even in his pyjamas

I think if she'd realised it was raining SH could have added all sorts of info to add time to the time she took having a cigarette, could have had them splashing in puddles, taking off their wet coats and shoes, drying the little girl with a towel, instead we just have her coming in and washing her hands.

 

[ColourPurple]

I wonder if police did gently question the little girl about anything? I'm thinking of an American case where the toddler told them mommy was in the carpet OWTTE.

ETA found the case. Jessie Marie Davis

A search is underway for a North Canton, Ohio, woman – nine months pregnant – who disappeared from her home, leaving behind broken furniture, a pool of bleach on the floor and just one witness: a 2-year-old son who told police: "Mommy's crying ... Mommy's in the rug."


Investigators would not elaborate on the meaning of the child's statement, but a comforter is missing from the bed of 26-year-old Jessie Marie Davis, whose disappearance was reported to police on Friday by her mother

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/missing-moms-son-mommys-in-the-rug/

 

[Alyce]

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.

My take was that as soon as they entered the house, SH went directly to the kitchen to get a cigarette.
I read that as meaning she had to go into the kitchen to obtain the cigarette -so she was therefore helping herself to a cigarette from a packet owned by either DG or AG.

If she came into the house and was planning to go immediately outside to the garden to smoke one of her own cigarettes, would they not just have said SH went straight out to the garden to have a smoke.

 

[Alyce]

I thought that was on a subsequent visit? Could easily be wrong though. But the mother brought it up, and why ask "how do you know I know her?" ? That seems odd in itself.

It is, to me, a rather defensive response. A more normal response from SH would have been along the lines of
yes it is awful etc, but I didnt mention it to you earlier, because NM and I are so stressed out with worry about it all

 

[ColourPurple]

It is, to me, a rather defensive response. A more normal response from SH would have been along the lines of
yes it is awful etc, but I didnt mention it to you earlier, because NM and I are so stressed out with worry about it all

They also had chance to tell her about Becky, when she was asking why they had visited after all that time. Asked if they were in trouble or whether they owed money.

 

[Tortoise]

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...

I think we have to trust that the prosecutor has succeeded in what he set out to do. Which is to convince the jury that NM hasn't justified his story. There are glaring gaps in his story which he can't fill, and the prosecutor wants it to be exactly that way. He tried to get him to break but he is sticking to his story, so this is plan B if you like.

For instance - Becky's injuries. 'How did she get so many injuries? - I can't explain, I don't know.'

Now the prosecutor could say - come on, you pulled her all over the place, you tortured her, it was an extremely violent attack, she put up a massive struggle... or he could just leave it with the 12 people of the jury to see and understand that here is a defendant whose story doesn't match up to the injuries. He can't explain because it didn't go like he says it did. He is covering up something. The jury will ask themselves - Would Becky have been able to get away from him while he had tape in his hands, struggling to get handcuffs on her with one hand reaching over to his suitcase of supplies. Of course she didn't kneel and close her eyes and do as she was told. She kicked out and fought like crazy. Her head was bashed all over the place.

So either NM has a level of health and fitness to be able to restrain Becky on his own, not cooperating as he says - but putting up a fight for her life, or there was a second person there.

The prosecutor's work is to make the jury think what did happen? If there was such a struggle it wasn't quick like he says, SH would have come back in before he had finished, he would have still been clearing up afterwards, packing up Becky's things, washing blood off himself, and he would have been in a lot of pain, not playing a game on his phone without a hair out of place.

That's my take on it.

 

[Alyce]

I happen to think that SH was outside now for 15 mins. I think NM told her to go outside with their child while he dealt with Becky and got her in the car. So that Becky wouldn't see or hear them, and so their child wouldn't see anything.

I think the problem came when SH went back in the house, heard the commotion still going on, and had to step in to assist.

Or they were both upstairs, attacking Becky, with fatal consequences.

Then, SH went downstairs and took the child outside to keep her out of the way, so she could not see or hear anything.
NM then brings the body downstairs. He then has to open the front door, open the car boot and put body into boot. Would be more normal surely to put the body down while he is opening the door and boot. They dont want to risk the child wandering out of the lounge ( next to front door ) to see what Daddy is doing, so SH takes her outside.
Then NM can go back upstairs, collect clothing etc, tidy up and put all of these items into the car boot.

I am almost inclined to think that SH washing her hands in the kitchen is the signal to NM to say she is back indoors, with the child. He could then call out to her to let her know all has been done and she can then bring the child back into the lounge, where NM is sitting.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I happen to think that SH was outside now for 15 mins. I think NM told her to go outside with their child while he dealt with Becky and got her in the car. So that Becky wouldn't see or hear them, and so their child wouldn't see anything.

I think the problem came when SH went back in the house, heard the commotion still going on, and had to step in to assist.

This is what I think too. And I pretty much believe the intent was to kidnap, not murder. In fact I will stick my neck out and say I do think NM is being fairly honest - aside from the bits about SH not knowing a thing, he's protecting her. However, I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow!

 

[Cherwell]

I think if she'd realised it was raining SH could have added all sorts of info to add time to the time she took having a cigarette, could have had them splashing in puddles, taking off their wet coats and shoes, drying the little girl with a towel, instead we just have her coming in and washing her hands.

A very good point.

My take was that as soon as they entered the house, SH went directly to the kitchen to get a cigarette.
I read that as meaning she had to go into the kitchen to obtain the cigarette -so she was therefore helping herself to a cigarette from a packet owned by either DG or AG.

If she came into the house and was planning to go immediately outside to the garden to smoke one of her own cigarettes, would they not just have said SH went straight out to the garden to have a smoke.

Yes, I'd guess she was in the habit of doing BIB, she was probably describing something she regularly did on other visits. The other reference to her smoking was when she accepted one in her mother's house. Quite likely she didn't buy her own, but just smoked when the opportunity arose, hence NM's comment.

 

[sar2them1984]

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)

Hmm rolling doesn't take much longer, besides it was stated she took the ciggie out the kitchen so no rolling involved

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[sar2them1984]

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

The plan failed but one person still getting away perhaps

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Callista]

I think we have to trust that the prosecutor has succeeded in what he set out to do. Which is to convince the jury that NM hasn't justified his story. There are glaring gaps in his story which he can't fill, and the prosecutor wants it to be exactly that way. He tried to get him to break but he is sticking to his story, so this is plan B if you like.

For instance - Becky's injuries. 'How did she get so many injuries? - I can't explain, I don't know.'

Now the prosecutor could say - come on, you pulled her all over the place, you tortured her, it was an extremely violent attack, she put up a massive struggle... or he could just leave it with the 12 people of the jury to see and understand that here is a defendant whose story doesn't match up to the injuries. He can't explain because it didn't go like he says it did. He is covering up something. The jury will ask themselves - Would Becky have been able to get away from him while he had tape in his hands, struggling to get handcuffs on her with one hand reaching over to his suitcase of supplies. Of course she didn't kneel and close her eyes and do as she was told. She kicked out and fought like crazy. Her head was bashed all over the place.

So either NM has a level of health and fitness to be able to restrain Becky on his own, not cooperating as he says - but putting up a fight for her life, or there was a second person there.

The prosecutor's work is to make the jury think what did happen? If there was such a struggle it wasn't quick like he says, SH would have come back in before he had finished, he would have still been clearing up afterwards, packing up Becky's things, washing blood off himself, and he would have been in a lot of pain, not playing a game on his phone without a hair out of place.

That's my take on it.

Great post - but just responding to the bolded part - or she sustained a level of injuries iconsistent with the concept that this was all unplanned and accidental. Admitting to a sustained and violent attack against Becky makes it a lot harder to claim that he didn't wish to harm her at all.

 

[Tortoise]

Or they were both upstairs, attacking Becky, with fatal consequences.

Then, SH went downstairs and took the child outside to keep her out of the way, so she could not see or hear anything.
NM then brings the body downstairs. He then has to open the front door, open the car boot and put body into boot. Would be more normal surely to put the body down while he is opening the door and boot. They dont want to risk the child wandering out of the lounge ( next to front door ) to see what Daddy is doing, so SH takes her outside.
Then NM can go back upstairs, collect clothing etc, tidy up and put all of these items into the car boot.

I am almost inclined to think that SH washing her hands in the kitchen is the signal to NM to say she is back indoors, with the child. He could then call out to her to let her know all has been done and she can then bring the child back into the lounge, where NM is sitting.

I might sound a bit sexist here, tell me if I am

I just think it would be more of a woman's idea to pack up items to make it look like Becky has gone out. Make-up, shoes, coat, phone (switched off), laptop, tablet. I think he had enough on his plate washing up visible blood, bringing in the boot liner to wrap her in, possibly wrapping her also in the duvet cover, getting her in the boot etc. and all before Anjie came back. I wonder if they knew how long Anjie would be.

 

[Alyce]

I might sound a bit sexist here, tell me if I am

I just think it would be more of a woman's idea to pack up items to make it look like Becky has gone out. Make-up, shoes, coat, phone (switched off), laptop, tablet. I think he had enough on his plate washing up visible blood, bringing in the boot liner to wrap her in, possibly wrapping her also in the duvet cover, getting her in the boot etc. and all before Anjie came back. I wonder if they knew how long Anjie would be.

I agree - particularly thinking about the make up. Despite what Mr Metrosexual told us about him wearing make up to conceal those bags under his eyes ! I doubt he would have thought about removing make up from Becky's room.
So possibly, SH comes back in, NM in lounge. TV put back on, child distracted by tv and SH asks if NM has thought about removing clothes etc.
When he says no, SH goes back upstairs and takes the stuff.

 

[YidArmyRach]

You know, SH would have been better off/more believable claiming she was aware of the stuff being moved and thought it was stolen goods or something, instead of this blind denial of everything. That then gives her a reason to lie to police, a reason to clear off to her mother's and doesn't leave her trying to explain how she never heard any of the commotion including stuff being moved from the loft right outisde her bedroom.

I wonder how much SH has turned a blind eye to in the past, so was perhaps used to pretending to know nothing about what was going on under her nose.

Just thinking about it, this couple had been together 7 years, neither with a proper work history, living on benefits yet could afford to run a car and have £10,000 in savings - despite having a child to provide for.

We know that NM worked cash in hand whilst claiming benefits - so she obviously turned a blind eye to that.

We know that NM gave a different address to that of SH despite living there, which could suggest that both were claiming benefits individually, with SH getting more than she was entitled to if claiming to be a single mother. So, benefit fraud.

It appears they didn't have a tv licence, so again breaking the law - albeit minor.

So, if NM had a history of getting involved in less-than lawful activities, and SH either participated, or ignored what was going on (for example if he was dealing with stolen goods), then it wouldn't be that difficult to believe that she could have suspected he was up to no good (passing on stolen goods etc) , but told the police that she hadn't noticed anything, as she didn't want to be questioned too much about what was going on, or about what she knew about previous things that had gone on.

So, once she had denied seeing or hearing anything, and once NM had also told that story, I guess it was impossible to go back on that and admit to seeing or hearing some of it, as she then looks guilty - and he then looks like he is covering up for her.

Just giving her the benefit of the doubt! I still think the pair of them are lying through their teeth though. His story is complete nonsense.

 

[Tortoise]

Great post - but just responding to the bolded part - or she sustained a level of injuries iconsistent with the concept that this was all unplanned and accidental. Admitting to a sustained and violent attack against Becky makes it a lot harder to claim that he didn't wish to harm her at all.

True.

I will admit I am still bothered to an extent about his capacity to inflict the fatal injuries. Its the same with the stun gun, he says he used it and I think he did, but he didn't use it effectively and I have a feeling it is because he was worried about its effect if he aimed it at her for too long. I do think he wanted to kidnap Becky and scare her, I know he dismembered Becky but he found it very difficult and couldn't continue. Maybe that was because of his fibro, maybe it was because he couldn't face doing more. He does seem to have capacity to feel emotion and empathy (for instance how SH felt in a threesome). I think the suffocation doesn't stack up with that, however bothered or jealous he was. As he says he had a plan and I do think he wanted that plan to work. JMO

 

[YidArmyRach]

I happen to think that SH was outside now for 15 mins. I think NM told her to go outside with their child while he dealt with Becky and got her in the car. So that Becky wouldn't see or hear them, and so their child wouldn't see anything.

I think the problem came when SH went back in the house, heard the commotion still going on, and had to step in to assist.

Or maybe he told her to go outside with the child after he had killed Becky, whilst he dealt with the aftermath - esp if he hadn't planned to kill her at that point. So the 20 - 25 minutes might have been the time it took to do that, not the initial attack.