I thought it was really funny when someone here suggested that the sleuths not familiar with the Bristol accent should search for Vicky Pollard
I feel sorry for anyone with the name Vicky Pollard!we dont all talk like that at least I hope my accent is not as Bristolian as that !
I don't know the full story on what happened to her on the way to school (is the full story public knowledge?) But it could be that she was kidnapped/taken and sexually assaulted? Maybe she DID say all those things all the OMG's ... We've seen around 10 minutes of video interview from, I imagine hours and hours and hours of questioning ...
I thought it was really funny when someone here suggested that the sleuths not familiar with the Bristol accent should search for Vicky Pollard
Yes to both? Can't help but feel from your bottom paragraph that you mistook what I was trying so say, I'm not wanting to win an argument, be right and I'm not at all inflexible.
Not sure I posed the bottom paragraph well ... I was asking a specific question, not pondering or asking anyone's option on this case.
Can anyone here think of a case where it looked to be very clear from evidence or their behaviour that the accused was guilty but they turned out to be proven innocent?
I thought it was really funny when someone here suggested that the sleuths not familiar with the Bristol accent should search for Vicky Pollard
And it went right over my head - I hadn't even twigged that V.Pollard had a Bristol accent ! ( Had to just google it - says west country so yes that neck of the woods.)
I just assumed that OP was referring to difficulty of working out teenage urban "patois".
OP ( Original poster)
Welcome back retribution
Oh, she is Bristol - she mentions various locations like Fishponds and Broadmead [emoji38]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Marking my spot.
Is is more Shauna in court tomorrow?? What would you ask her if you were the judge for a minute? (barring the obvious, obviously!) What would trip her up, if she's involved?
I had to sleep on it. It's more difficult than I thought, but this one would be of interest to me.
I would ask SH if NM offered an explanation for going to Asda in Bedminister on 21 Feb to purchase these items 'various bleach-related cleaning products', black bags, rubble sacks, rubber gloves and three rolls of cling film, then the following day 22 Feb, go to Wilko in Broadmead buying more rubble sacks, tape and sponge, and then travelling on to Sainsbury's in Brislington to purchase more tape?
If he didn't give a reason why, did she find it suspicious? If not, why? Also, did he give a reason for buying these products?
I don't think it would necessarily trip her up but I'm just wondering what her reaction and answers would be. NM is all about saving money, why waste petrol on trips that are out of the way? Even under stress (I assume), NM queried the price of the circular saw he bought on 20 feb at B & Q. Didn't it seem uncharacteristic of him to waste money on shopping trips?
She was asked about these purchases. Her response was that she thought he had finally decided to clear out his hoards of stuff. She didn't question the purchases because "she wanted it so much" or words to that effect. She also said they intended to buy packing boxes at Asda but forgot.
So many unknowns, complexities, and details missing.
If I were a juror I think I'd be in big trouble. There's no smoking gun. The prosecution's case with respect to SH is weak. There is no doubt of that. I get the feeling that when NM confessed, they stopped investigating.
The prosecution has floated a theory that it was sexually motivated and that Becky was dismembered in the bathtub of NM and SH's home. Well we know NM killed her however, his story does not support the theory put forth. The evidence really doesn't prove that Becky was dismembered in the bathtub and in fact the lack of evidence is leaving everyone here scratching their head trying figure out where it really happened. NM's story has nothing to do with a sexual motivation. As unreal as it seems, he could be telling the truth about the motivation. Weird but not unbelievable.
The lack of solid/tangible evidence against SH is, IMO, worrisome. You only need some doubt to creep into the minds of the jurors to acquit. I feel she's guilty. I feel she's lying. I feel a lot about SH and none of it is good however, what I feel is not enough to convict her.
If SH had come out and said, I was aware of what happened. He forced me to take part and I was afraid for my life and that of my child. I'll help you and give you whatever you want then I am much more understanding and less rigid. But she didn't say that. I think she and her lawyer looked at the evidence against her and decided the best game plan was to deny all, and hope for the best because there is a possibility that the jury will acquit her if there is any niggling doubt.
I hate this case. I'm a person who needs closure and we're not going to get it here.