GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #12

[Alyce]

Yes but the question is can they find her guilty of murder on the basis that she covered up for him? I think a lot will depend on the judges instructions to the jury at the end.

Oh I agree, that part is harder. I hope the judge can remind the jury of the amount of lies and total rubbish that SH has spouted in her evidence and they can reach a good conclusion.

 

[jessie]

Seeing SH deflect every question from the prosecutor with a definitive "No", "Not me", "Nope, I had no clue" is getting a bit tiresome. I feel that more probative questions need to be asked so that she can explain herself and all of her inactions from 19/2 to 2/3.

Is the prosecutor bound by anything to simply ask yes/no questions or is this just his style? Maybe more pointed question will be asked of SH tomorrow.

Just almost said the same a few posts ago. !

The prosecution has to ask deeper questions and get detailed answers surely, otherwise it allows a defendant to just say "Wasn't me guv".

I realise she doesn't have to prove her non-guilt (I can't use the word innocence with SH sorry), but I wonder if she thinks the lack of definitive dna is enough to get her off?

This wasn't just something that happened one night when she may well not have been aware of anything though.
The visit to RW's home, the struggle, excuses to AG, and then the unusual shopping and bathroom business which went on for a few days, odd visit to her mum, and much more. She really does have an awful lot of explaining away to do yet.
IMO she believes refuting the allegations is enough as there is no evidence. Dream on Shauna !

 

[ColourPurple]

Just occurred to me, why would NM think he has to slam the door shut anyway. Becky could have left while SH was in the garden and she wouldn't have heard. She could have left without him hearing her over the TV or his game on his mobile. He didn't know how long SH was going to spend washing her hands in the kitchen or if she would wash them at all, so while he's waiting by the front door ready to slam it when he hears her come in the kitchen , she could have walked straight through the kitchen into the hall and bumped into him in the hall, having just slammed the door.

 

[ColourPurple]

It might seem slightly unlikely - but it's completely plausible'

Hoare said her version of events was true.
She said: “It might seem slightly unlikely to people but it is completely plausible”.

Interesting choice of words rather than the more obvious "It might seem slightly unlikely to people but it's true"

 

[ColourPurple]

Not happy as she had just discovered what was being moved perhaps?

I think she knew well before then, otherwise why avoid letting police search before.

 

[Tortoise]

Sorry, I don't agree with any of you who think there isn't enough evidence for murder or conspiracy to kidnap. I think she will be convicted.

I think she is coming across as completely unbelievable. In the absence of a believable version she proves her own guilt IMO. Her story is more than ridiculous from start to finish and fails the test of reasonably possibly true.

NM was not physically capable of managing that prolonged attack on his own, against an able struggling teenager, inside 15-20 minutes, and looking completely normal and fine afterwards. He had blood to clean off his hands too, and blood on his hat, so he would have been washing in either the kitchen or the bathroom adjoining the kitchen when, or rather if, SH came in. He didn't include any of that in his version.

Her denials of joining in with NM's sexual fantasies are also patently untrue, and she always did what he wanted to make him happy. She says she went there to socialise at a time when no-one was going to be in.

 

[Alyce]

Tortoise, I am 100% with you on SHs total guilt. I just hope the Jury see it the same way.

 

[Tortoise]

I've been thinking about the make up on the diy mask.

I think he ended up with bruises on his face and put make up on to cover them on the Friday when he took SH to Crown Hill. I don't suppose the CCTV in B&Q would pick it up.

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise, I am 100% with you on SHs total guilt. I just hope the Jury see it the same way.

I think they will probably see it more than we can. we are not hearing everything or seeing what they are.

 

[TupeloMz]

All through this trial up until today I have said that SH saying she knew nothing at all about BW and NM and the murder could not possibly be true because it defies logic. But during today's testimony I had a light bulb moment. SH is so similar to my sister. All throughout our lives she has been a don't ask don't tell person (we are in our 50's). I have always thought it was because she is a very selfish person and does not care one bit about anything that doesn't directly effect her. I have often been amazed at the things that have happened in our lives that she has seemed totally unconcerned about. She has hardly any personality and the only thing that she has been the slightest emotional about has been her husband. What he says goes,again, with no questions asked on her part.
I really don't know where I am going with this but it is weighting heavy on me and I needed to get it off my chest. Sorry.
All that being said...The text about kidnapping teenage girls and the parody song still makes me think SH was involved.

 

[NSS]

As a juror - I could and would convict.

I could accept one or two 'oddities' or coincidences, but to suspend all rationale or logic, nope not me, the TOTALITY of her testimony screams guilt.

 

[MamaJoJo]

All through this trial up until today I have said that SH saying she knew nothing at all about BW and NM and the murder could not possibly be true because it defies logic. But during today's testimony I had a light bulb moment. SH is so similar to my sister. All throughout our lives she has been a don't ask don't tell person (we are in our 50's). I have always thought it was because she is a very selfish person and does not care one bit about anything that doesn't directly effect her. I have often been amazed at the things that have happened in our lives that she has seemed totally unconcerned about. She has hardly any personality and the only thing that she has been the slightest emotional about has been her husband. What he says goes,again, with no questions asked on her part.
I really don't know where I am going with this but it is weighting heavy on me and I needed to get it off my chest. Sorry.
All that being said...The text about kidnapping teenage girls and the parody song still makes me think SH was involved.

Do you think your sister, Tupelo, is like this because of her husband? Because he may be too controlling or abusive toward her? Or, was your sister, perhaps, always a bit like she is now?

I'm curious why the lightbulb went on for you during today's testimony. For me (and everyone else here, I know), NM isn't a peach of a guy. I believe that between SH and NM there was/is A LOT of dysfunction. How did NO ONE see that he was a creeper and was capable of something pretty awful? Ugh, it breaks my heart knowing that BW had any contact with NM in her life and what messed up dynamic they had. Poor baby.

 

[mrazda71]

I think a lot of the things CAN be explained away and in fact some of them, Shauna has explained them exactly as I'd thought and commented earlier ... I can't say I think she's guilty especially of the kidnap plan and murder but I can't say I think she's completely non complicit and innocent either and to be honest I don't think I can decide until after the trial when a lot of things will become apparent because the snippets we're hearing from court are the tip of the iceberg :/ IF Jamie Ireland testified that it was without doubt Shauna arguing with Nathan the night they went to pick up body parts then I would be learning much further toward one way ... can't believe this is week 5 though!

 

[Tortoise]

if NM did get a bruised face, if Becky thumped him one on the cheekbone or something, it means he wasn't wearing a disguise mask. or maybe she punched it off if he was.

 

[YidArmyRach]

Sorry, I don't agree with any of you who think there isn't enough evidence for murder or conspiracy to kidnap. I think she will be convicted.

I think she is coming across as completely unbelievable. In the absence of a believable version she proves her own guilt IMO. Her story is more than ridiculous from start to finish and fails the test of reasonably possibly true.

NM was not physically capable of managing that prolonged attack on his own, against an able struggling teenager, inside 15-20 minutes, and looking completely normal and fine afterwards. He had blood to clean off his hands too, and blood on his hat, so he would have been washing in either the kitchen or the bathroom adjoining the kitchen when, or rather if, SH came in. He didn't include any of that in his version.

Her denials of joining in with NM's sexual fantasies are also patently untrue, and she always did what he wanted to make him happy. She says she went there to socialise at a time when no-one was going to be in.

I don't believe she is innocent at all. I just think it comes down to proving it, beyond reasonable doubt, which is proving hard so far.

I think she was involved right from Becky's house. I think her role was not as 'hands on' as NM's.

I just think that whilst NM keeps saying it was just him, and the lack of DNA to connect her, it puts the jury in a very difficult position. I don't envy them at all.

I agree with you that her evidence, contradictions and lack of explanations is very damning though.

 

[YidArmyRach]

Unrelated, but some interesting reading regarding the how a man would struggle to carry a suitcase with a person (female) inside it.

And, awful, but how it might actually be possible to get a live person inside a suitcase (thought it appears, thankfully, that this lady would have been deeply unconscious).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...an-body-suitcase-London-canal-goes-trial.html

 

[Clio]

Just occurred to me, why would NM think he has to slam the door shut anyway. Becky could have left while SH was in the garden and she wouldn't have heard. She could have left without him hearing her over the TV or his game on his mobile. He didn't know how long SH was going to spend washing her hands in the kitchen or if she would wash them at all, so while he's waiting by the front door ready to slam it when he hears her come in the kitchen , she could have walked straight through the kitchen into the hall and bumped into him in the hall, having just slammed the door.

Isn't it simply to do with AG. We know he told AG he heard a door slam as the reason for thinking Becky had gone out. One he'd said that, he couldn't retract it. Whatever it was that happened, I don't think it was planned for Becky to die in that house at that time, if at all. When AG got back from hospital, she probably asked about Becky and maybe that was the first thing that came to mind to explain how he/they knew she'd gone out.

 

[TupeloMz]

Do you think your sister, Tupelo, is like this because of her husband? Because he may be too controlling or abusive toward her? Or, was your sister, perhaps, always a bit like she is now?

I'm curious why the lightbulb went on for you during today's testimony. For me (and everyone else here, I know), NM isn't a peach of a guy. I believe that between SH and NM there was/is A LOT of dysfunction. How did NO ONE see that he was a creeper and was capable of something pretty awful? Ugh, it breaks my heart knowing that BW had any contact with NM in her life and what messed up dynamic they had. Poor baby.

No my sister has been this way our whole lives.
I think the light bulb went off today because I was asking myself if it was possible for someone to really not know what was going on in that house throughout the dismemberment and clean up. And my own answer was yes your sister lol. If her husband told her the toilet was blocked and she had to use a bucket she would. If he said he had to buy saw to fix it she would not ask any questions. If he suddenly said lets go see your mom after 4 years of no contact, she would think it was fine. Even the part about telling her parents to say they were going out for a meal because he just didn't feel like talking to the police, she would have gone along with.
Iol, I guess I am saying I believe all that is possible because I can see my sister doing all of that.
My sister's husband is a bit controlling but I don't think he is abusive.
It is good that her husband hasn't killed anyone because she would be totally unaware.

*I still think SH was involved from the beginning. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Unrelated, but some interesting reading regarding the how a man would struggle to carry a suitcase with a person (female) inside it.

And, awful, but how it might actually be possible to get a live person inside a suitcase (thought it appears, thankfully, that this lady would have been deeply unconscious).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...an-body-suitcase-London-canal-goes-trial.html

Yes, and that guy probably didn't have fibro either.

 

[ColourPurple]

I don't believe she is innocent at all. I just think it comes down to proving it, beyond reasonable doubt, which is proving hard so far.

I think she was involved right from Becky's house. I think her role was not as 'hands on' as NM's.

I just think that whilst NM keeps saying it was just him, and the lack of DNA to connect her, it puts the jury in a very difficult position. I don't envy them at all.

I agree with you that her evidence, contradictions and lack of explanations is very damning though.

One reason I think conspiracy to kidnap will be hard to prove is because I'm not sure there ever was a kidnap plan. I think that was the excuse they came up with afterwards.