GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #11

[Beesknees]

Yes, she does a smirking smile! Like she KNOWS why.

Watching the tape again, I can't get my head around her answer to why the police should believe she wasn't involved.
'Again, I shouldn't have any DNA reason to be involved... especially my past, that I could allow something happen like that to someone else is highly unlikely.'

Why bring up DNA evidence?! So obvious she and NM discussed this and he reassured her there wouldn't be DNA evidence to convict her.
Also, the highly unlikely part means there still is a chance, be it a small one that she would allow it. :thinking:

They just shown that DNA was a big worry they had. NM was very careful about it and they were very confident nothing would be found.

Do you have any idea why he left so easily that blood print in the door frames in Becky's house? It appears they had time to do a better clean before AG arrived from hospital. Why so much care in their house and so less in Becky's? Perhaps they used all the time shocked with wht happened and trying to calm and begin to rehearse the story they would have to tell from the moment AG would arrive on?

 

[Wallace]

Yes, she does a smirking smile! Like she KNOWS why.

Watching the tape again, I can't get my head around her answer to why the police should believe she wasn't involved.
'Again, I shouldn't have any DNA reason to be involved... especially my past, that I could allow something happen like that to someone else is highly unlikely.'

Why bring up DNA evidence?! So obvious she and NM discussed this and he reassured her there wouldn't be DNA evidence to convict her.
Also, the highly unlikely part means there still is a chance, be it a small one that she would allow it. :thinking:

I too wonder about her confidence in the lack of DNA evidence.

In a house that I had lived in I would expect my DNA to be every where. Not hard to believe that there could be secondary contact. Yet she appears supremely confident that no DNA evidence would link her to the body. I would suggest that the only way she would know that was if she had helped to wash it all away. Or knew that someone had done that on her behalf.

I still find it incredible that they used a circular saw and managed to some how stop it covering the room with DNA evidence. I've only ever used one for its intended purpose and they kick out wood particles in every direction.

 

[Beesknees]

About the interviews, I am not able to follow them :dunno: I can pick some words here and there but am hopeless in understanding her Bristolian accent. Also NM interviews I couldn't comprehend. In general I can follow a conversation in English - American language, but in English from the UK is more difficult for me. And this accent from Bristol turns me completly ignorant of most they are saying.

 

[TupeloMz]

Thinking over what we have heard thus far..... It seems that the only thing we can be sure of is that Becky was attacked by NM on the landing of her home. At some point she died and was dismembered (sorry). We do not know who besides NM was involved, exactly how or exactly where. We do know at some point she was in the back of their car and was eventually moved from their house to the shed where she was found. All the events in the middle are one big mystery.
One I hope will be solved by the end of this trial. Becky needs justice.

 

[edgedweller]

I assume this tampon has been tested and presume it is Becky's? Why on earth would that need to be removed if there was no sexual motive? ( First time I have heard this!!)

Not sure but presume they've tested it. One option was that maybe Becky changed her tampon just before the confrontation with NM and hadn't put it in the bin yet for some reason ( no mention of whether it was wrapped in tissue or anything), so it might've been in a pocket? Maybe the bathroom bin was full and she took it back to her room.

Others have said that the way her body was dismembered, it would've fallen out. Don't really want to think about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[edgedweller]

Re the driving back from Crown Hill to CML and then back again to Crown Hill before AG returned from the hospital.
Time wise it could have been done, but in reality, why would they ?

If they had decided to go back to CML with Becky's body, why then return to Crown Hill ? It was not one of their regular * carer* days ( am trying not to laugh as I type that ) and I don't believe AG was expecting them to be there when she got home. After all, their sole purpose for visiting that day was to return the cake tin to MM ( AGs mother ) and they could easily have left the tin inside the house.

It would also have made sense not to go back. Then, when the alarm was raised for Becky, they could say they just popped in with the tin, didnt hear any noise etc, so didnt know if Becky was home or not. Thus muddying the waters regarding Becky's time of departure from the house.

This is one thing in SH's favour, IMO. If they both knew what had happened, why stay? Surely they're much better off going home and starting to plan getting rid of the body. Perhaps it would be remarked upon if they just popped in and out, or perhaps AG had mentioned looking forward to seeing her granddaughter. Still if they are at Crown Hill nearly every day anyway, there's no need to stay all day. This makes me think that NM was the only one that knew, and that he felt he had to act normally, which for them would be to hang around most of the day, stay warm in the Galsworthy's house, who presumably would have the heating on in February! Or perhaps he was almost paralysed by the fear and shock of what he'd done and couldn't think of what to do next.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[edgedweller]

That would have been around lunch time? What time did CBeebies come on?

Shredded wheat for the child ... and after all their hard work, Chinese takeaway and pizza for them.

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...2B8ADC!1477&authkey=!ADtXLjozus6A4Iw&app=Word

CBeebies is a channel, it's on from 6am to 7pm every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LBB]

The forensic evidence sounds as if Becky was dragged down the stairs (the stomping) while still alive, but probably deeply unconscious. It is what I have often considered.
How efficient was NM at finding her pulse? Becky could have had a very slow pulse after the carotid artery pressure, tape over her mouth (and nose) plus the possible short burst of the stun gun.
The smothering possibly happening in the boot - but by whom I don't know. OMO


eta I don't believe he ever got her into the suitcase. alive or deceased.

Just catching up. I too have wondered at what stage BW died as I don't really feel we can trust that NM was great and finding a pulse and establishing that she was alive or dead

 

[LBB]

This is one thing in SH's favour, IMO. If they both knew what had happened, why stay? Surely they're much better off going home and starting to plan getting rid of the body. Perhaps it would be remarked upon if they just popped in and out, or perhaps AG had mentioned looking forward to seeing her granddaughter. Still if they are at Crown Hill nearly every day anyway, there's no need to stay all day. This makes me think that NM was the only one that knew, and that he felt he had to act normally, which for them would be to hang around most of the day, stay warm in the Galsworthy's house, who presumably would have the heating on in February! Or perhaps he was almost paralysed by the fear and shock of what he'd done and couldn't think of what to do next.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a really good point. Why stay? It makes no sense if they both knew. This is something that the defence will surely raise which would then give the prosecution the change to cross examine her on it. I'd like to hear their take on it and whether they can think of a very good reason why they would stay.

 

[edgedweller]

The discussion here is interesting, if it wasn't none of us would be here. But it is limited by our access to the evidence. The point I was making was that with full access to all the evidence (and importantly to the non admissible evidence) WM and his team will have more than enough ideas and tactics up their sleeves.

It's fun to see how people's thought processes work. It's one of the main reasons I come here. Some of the ideas are so bizarre and left field that I suppose it is possible that someone could come up with a different angle that could work in court. But in the main I think we have to trust that the man in the funny outfit doesn't really need our help.

I assumed that the posters implying that Mr Mousley should read this thread for ideas were being sarcastic [emoji51].


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iclaudia]

I'm awfully behind, but just had to say to this. She wasn't even what I would qualify as a smoker. She smoked maybe a pack a week according to her. Rarely could she smoke around NM, who she was with ALL the time according to the 2 of them. I smoked 2.5 packs a day for 25 years and the day I found out I was pregnant, I stopped. Sounds like she may have averaged 2-3 cigarettes a day. It actually is a very simple choice when it comes down to the health of your unborn children. Believe me, I personally know how much of an addiction it is, but she was a casual smoker at best, should have been fairly easy for her to go from a couple cigarettes a day to nothing.

I'm very anti-smoking (particularly in pregnancy) but as an ex smoker I can assure you that it's not the case that it's easier for a casual smoker to stop. In fact if anything it is often psychologically harder because they force themselves to smoke less than they would like to (or as she claims, she isn't allowed to smoke much) which makes each cigarette even more "valuable". It's harder still because there isn't the incentive of stopping that you get if you're a heavy smoker because you're able to delude yourself that "it's only the odd one, what harm is it doing?".

I lived with a casual smoker who loved to call herself that, yet when she got the notion of wanting a cigarette she would go massively out of her way to get one. When I was still smoking she would scrounge one off me, but it became clear once I stopped that there wasn't much "casual" about it - she would even go out at 11pm in the pouring rain to buy some in order to satisfy her supposedly "casual craving".

 

[edgedweller]

About the interviews, I am not able to follow them :dunno: I can pick some words here and there but am hopeless in understanding her Bristolian accent. Also NM interviews I couldn't comprehend. In general I can follow a conversation in English - American language, but in English from the UK is more difficult for me. And this accent from Bristol turns me completly ignorant of most they are saying.

LOL! I'm from the south coast of England and have lived near Bristol for over ten years, and even I have to concentrate to decode what they're saying - it's very fast too. You should google 'Vicky Pollard' who is a comedy character from Bristol, it's very funny [emoji38] even if you don't understand what "she"'s saying!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Thanks, I've not watched any of the interviews so didn't know that.

I think the only thing that is obvious is that we are hearing a story cooked up by two people trying to save their necks. One has drawn the short straw and decided to try and minimise their sentence with a load of guff about it being an accident. The other believing that her only chance of beating the charges is to make the jury believe the totally implausible idea that all of this happened without her seeing or hearing a thing.

Someone counted in a previous thread, and NM said "obviously" 26 times in 4 minutes during one of his interviews, or something like that!

 

[iclaudia]

I find it really sad that so many people have dismissed Shauna's claim to have been in a controlling relationship by saying "but she was allowed to go to the shop!" or "how come she was allowed to go on Facebook then?". It's as if the only sort of control that some people are prepared to consider is one where the abused party has literally NO freedom whatsoever.

Assuming what SH says is true regarding their relationship, I am absolutely horrified to think that she lived in this way. Having to ask permission to smoke a cigarette or be allowed a treat? What is she, an animal? Not being allowed to leave the house alone without his permission? What a life for the child, let alone anyone else.

Obviously she may well be hamming some of this up to support her case, but we've heard that some of it is true according to other testimony. Innocent or guilty, I think it's yet another case of another tragic child floundering in the system, without any consistent parenting, leading to yet another cycle of children being taken into care and the cycle starting all over again.

All the families involved in this case are fractured and highly damaged. NM not brought up by his own mother, neither was SH. BW kicked out of the home for being an annoying teenager by her dad (at the age of 15/16 - shocking), and noone seeming to blink an eye. LD's children all being taken into care before she goes on to have 4 more children; how horrific and negligent is that?

 

[Cherwell]

BW kicked out of the home for being an annoying teenager by her dad (at the age of 15/16 - shocking), and noone seeming to blink an eye.

I've wondered about that. She does have a mother, of course, and her maternal grandmother, so did she go to them? Or perhaps she went to stay with one of the countless uncles, aunts or other half- and step-relatives. It's emotive language to say she was "kicked out", but I hardly think she was wandering the streets homeless.

 

[Clio]

I'd be really interested to know exactly what SH and NM said to AG in the very early period after Becky disappeared. The thing is that if SH wasn't really outside in the garden when Becky was killed, then that story must've been made up specifically to keep her separate from the whole thing, so that she could plausibly claim she wasn't involved. Otherwise they may as well just have lied and said they were together in the lounge when they heard Becky leave, so giving them both an alibi.

If NM said he was actually with her when Becky left, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of making up the story in the first place? Why lie and say you were separated in order to keep Shauna out of it, then lie again and say you were together, totally undermining the first lie?!
It almost seems as if they really were separate at that point and NM lied to give himself an alibi, only later realising this would implicate SH if he got caught.

BIB It's the other way round. I would also have liked to hear a statement from AG, but it seems like that's not going to happen.

 

[Bathsheba]

LOL! I'm from the south coast of England and have lived near Bristol for over ten years, and even I have to concentrate to decode what they're saying - it's very fast too. You should google 'Vicky Pollard' who is a comedy character from Bristol, it's very funny [emoji38] even if you don't understand what "she"'s saying!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm from the North East of England and I find their Bristol accent easier to understand than some north east accents lol.

 

[mrazda71]

I've wondered about that. She does have a mother, of course, and her maternal grandmother, so did she go to them? Or perhaps she went to stay with one of the countless uncles, aunts or other half- and step-relatives. It's emotive language to say she was "kicked out", but I hardly think she was wandering the streets homeless.

I agree Cherwell and I think after hearing from her own Dad that her behaviour was SO awful towards Anji that it is what some parents do 'right that's it, i've had enough, get out' then the teenagers goes and sulks at friend/grandma's/bf-gf house - in the hopes that it gives them a short sharp shock and they realise how much upset they're causing.

Eeek ... just realised as I was writing it that it almost follows Nathan's plan ... minus the kidnapping etc and 'obviously' how it turned out but ...

 

[Kaly99]

BIB It's the other way round. I would also have liked to hear a statement from AG, but it seems like that's not going to happen.

Do you mean that they initially lied and said they were together in the kitchen, then later came up with the story about SH being in the garden?

I guess it depends what they both said in those very early days after Becky went missing. The story about SH smoking is actually a pretty complicated one, because on the one hand it allows her to not be present when BW was killed, yet at the same time lends a bit of support to NM's lack of involvement by saying she heard the door slam, and at the same time still leaves open the possibility that the door slam was NM if they were caught! If they came up with that story before AG returned, they were thinking very quickly indeed - so much easier for them to say they were both in the lounge watching TV with their daughter when BW left.

A few people have said an innocent SH would've been suspicious if NM had said he was in the kitchen when the door slammed. I don't think she would, I think she'd just have assumed it was an innocent mistake: "I was in the kitchen with Shauna when the door slammed"; "No you weren't, you were watching TV in the lounge, remember? I'd just come in from smoking, then I made you a drink"; "Oh yeah, sorry you're right, I was in the lounge. I didn't go into the kitchen till later when you were making me a drink". If innocent, it isn't as if they would've had any reason to pay special attention where they were at that time.

 

[Kaly99]

I agree Cherwell and I think after hearing from her own Dad that her behaviour was SO awful towards Anji that it is what some parents do 'right that's it, i've had enough, get out' then the teenagers goes and sulks at friend/grandma's/bf-gf house - in the hopes that it gives them a short sharp shock and they realise how much upset they're causing.

Eeek ... just realised as I was writing it that it almost follows Nathan's plan ... minus the kidnapping etc and 'obviously' how it turned out but ...

I've actually thought exactly this - that if kicking Becky out of home was seen as a suitable punishment for disrespect (something SH said happened quite regularly, FWIW) then perhaps in that context this seemingly farfetched kidnap plot didn't seem so drastic after all, even perfectly reasonable...

ETA: I'm with iclaudia on this one - kicking Becky out of home for what was most likely normal teenage behaviour can't have given the kid much sense of a stable home, especially given that her background was pretty unstable anyway. My guess is she went to a friend's or to her boyfriend's house when this happened.