GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #14

[Clio]

I thought his makeup was to hide the dark circles/bags under his eyes.

It's plausible that he did occasionally use make up to improve his appearance. He looks vain enough to do that kind of thing. What isn't plausible is that it's the explanation for the makeup being on the mask. Picture the scene. You are about to dismember a body using a circular saw when you catch a glimpse of yourself in the bathroom mirror. Oh my God you think, look at those awful dark circles under my eyes. I'd better put some makeup on them before I continue to dismember this body.

The makeup is from her face. She helped.

I don't for one minute believe the nonsense about dark circles under the eyes. He dropped SH off at CH on the morning of the 20th. I don't imagine he wanted AG asking where he'd got a bruise from. In fact it was probably SH's idea for him to use make up.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

not to do with the money aspect, but gosh, his words "my mum's a *advertiser censored*"!

that is not someone who respects and thinks compassionately about their mum being mistreated. IMO. just a little insight into his mind there from where I see things.

I agree. I think he has contempt for everyone, including his mother.

 

[Wallace]

I don't for one minute believe the nonsense about dark circles under the eyes. He dropped SH off at CH on the morning of the 20th. I don't imagine he wanted AG asking where he'd got a bruise from. In fact it was probably SH's idea for him to use make up.

Think I must have missed a page here.

So NM had a bruise on his face?

Did he explain where that came from?

 

[Tortoise]

Think I must have missed a page here.

So NM had a bruise on his face?

Did he explain where that came from?

it was something we surmised as being a reason for him wearing concealer. the dust mask with the make up was the one he wore, not SH.

 

[Clio]

Think I must have missed a page here.

So NM had a bruise on his face?

Did he explain where that came from?

We don't know if he had a bruise on his face. It's not impossible that he did and that he used make up to disguise it so that it wouldn't be questioned. If he used make up to disguise a bruise on the morning of the 20th and didn't wash it off before donning a mask later that day it could explain why the mask with make up on had his DNA but not SH's DNA. It was stated last Friday that the make up "was never tested" whatever that means.

 

[cottonweaver]

with regard to bruising on him - it happened on 19th Feb and he was arrested on 28th Feb. in 9 days bruising and scratches could have healed. was SH ever checked for bodily bruising I wonder - although same would apply in regards to time delay.

Thankyou - that's another one I can draw a line through. His bruises are gone by time he is arrested, so no forensic testimony in court about that.

(Idea that it isn't credible that SH only saw one cut, (not all the rest of his injuries), is debatable, it was dark in their home with the stun gun torches LOL)

Clever in a way though, to say - yes actually I saw one cut - she makes herself slightly more believable I suppose.

BTW fab post on therun-through checklist of what the jury need to think through. TBH I was expecting the Pros to highlight these small damning details somewhere, walk the jury through it.

No way that jury are going to believe that that assault was carried out, in those testified circumstances, without her knowledge, (I am resisting saying “without her assistance” as trying to see from juror perspective, not my own. )

 

[Clio]

Clever in a way though, to say - yes actually I saw one cut - she makes herself slightly more believable I suppose.

This one of the things she gets mixed up about. IIRC She first says she saw the cut on Sat 21st then corrects herself to say no, she saw it on the evening of the 20th.

 

[Wallace]

This one of the things she gets mixed up about. IIRC She first says she saw the cut on Sat 21st then corrects herself to say no, she saw it on the evening of the 20th.

Like it matters.

Oh hang yes it does because she is meant to be remembering her lines correctly.

 

[cottonweaver]

not to do with the money aspect, but gosh, his words "my mum's a *advertiser censored*"!

that is not someone who respects and thinks compassionately about their mum being mistreated. IMO. just a little insight into his mind there from where I see things.

can I just add, in his parlance IMO, from my experience, he is meaning his mum is being naive and is being manipulated. What I mean is that it is the sort of thing he would say to his best friend, to their face, when they said something dumb or naive.

For us on the outside, a different generation it sounds like he is totally disrespectful and disdainful of his mum but I don't think that is what he really means. IMO he would have even said it to her face and she would not have baulked, part of the language culture etc.

But to agree with general gist of what you're all saying - long term, huge resentment over cash and over BW getting "special treatment", simmering for years, in his and SH's purview every day they were round there.
100% with you all guessing that both SH NM will have been snooping round her bedroom so many times in BW's absence,taking things, looking for intimate things. ( Still catching up on all your yesterday's posts.)

 

[Yozzer]

We don't know if he had a bruise on his face. It's not impossible that he did and that he used make up to disguise it so that it wouldn't be questioned. If he used make up to disguise a bruise on the morning of the 20th and didn't wash it off before donning a mask later that day it could explain why the mask with make up on had his DNA but not SH's DNA. It was stated last Friday that the make up "was never tested" whatever that means.

Yes and NM is not going to admit to using it to hide bruises as this would reinforce the prosecution view that there was a violent struggle. Better to say he's a 'metrosexual' who wears make up to conceal blemishes.

 

[Clio]

Like it matters.

Oh hang yes it does because she is meant to be remembering her lines correctly.

Quite. As was NM. In his first confession he stated he took Becky's body into CML on Friday 20th but didn't take her out of "the suitcase" until the evening of Sat 21st. That couldn't be true if he was doing the dismemberment on the afternoon of the 20th whilst SH was at CH. He later made a revised statement saying he got his days mixed up.

He also said that the thing that took the most time was wrapping and packaging. It's not impossible that they planned for him to do the disposal preparation alone whilst SH was elsewhere with an alibi, but it proved too difficult and/or too time consuming.

 

[jessie]

with regard to bruising on him - it happened on 19th Feb and he was arrested on 28th Feb. in 9 days bruising and scratches could have healed. was SH ever checked for bodily bruising I wonder - although same would apply in regards to time delay.

IIRC the prosecution did bring up the lack of injuries to NM, in consideration that Becky had put up a tremendous fight.

The pros was, as I understood it, saying that it was almost impossible that NM acted alone to have escaped so unmarked.

As it was brought up in the pros. I feel it must be an important point, even considering the length of time before his police questioning.
Maybe they did ask SH's parents, DG, AG whether they had noticed any visible injuries to NM ?

Sorry I'll see if I can find a ref. it might have been in closing speech.

 

[ColourPurple]

Since someone posted here about Tabak case and in-admissability at trial of his viewing (*advertiser censored*) history - prejudicing trial in comparison to it's "evidential value" ( apols it would take me an age of half-loading pages to go find that OP's post)
I wonder if this DSS fraudulence is another example of that?

Could be, though one of them (Nm or SH)mentioned something about NM not supposed to be living there anyway)

With Tabak, the evidence that was deemed inadmissable due to affecting his right to a fair trial was

* Watching strangulation *advertiser censored*
* Leaving Joanna's body in the same position to how a blonde woman on one of the videos was left
* Joanna looking like one of the women in a strangulation *advertiser censored* video he'd watched.
* Watching two films where women were bundled into car boots(like Joanna's body was)
* After the murder, flicking between pictures of Joanna, and *advertiser censored*, on one occasion he viewed pics of Joanna at 7.37 then *advertiser censored* including strangulation *advertiser censored* at 7.38
* His use of escorts and prostitutes(which meant he was able to claim in court to be a shy sexually inexperienced man who'd only really had one girlfriend.)

It leaves me wondering if the reason the jury was allowed to hear about the rape video on NM's laptop was for the very fact that there was no proof it had been watched since 2014.

Which makes me wonder if there is more recent damning *advertiser censored* viewing by either NM or SH, that the pros and police know about, that can't be used because the judge has ruled that it would affect their right to a fair trial in the same way as Tabak.

 

[ColourPurple]

not to do with the money aspect, but gosh, his words "my mum's a *advertiser censored*"!

that is not someone who respects and thinks compassionately about their mum being mistreated. IMO. just a little insight into his mind there from where I see things.

It does tie in with him thinking that Becky was taking advantage of his mother though and shows he'd been thinking that for a while. I would have liked to have seen SH's reply.

 

[Tortoise]

Something else popped up in my mind.

We know Becky's jumper was cut straight down the back. Proof that they couldn't raise her arms to remove it.

Rigor was present at the time of dismemberment.

 

[Cherwell]

I've just remembered reading that the family had asked for some things not to be made public out of respect for Becky.
I'm pretty sure this came from Retribution, but can't check because those posts have now gone (they contained details which would have identified him/her). This may explain why some things are not being reported, but they will have been brought out in court, or at least disclosed to the jury.

BIB What do you mean Cherwell,specifically on this part? Are you saying they wont release details of sexual assault "aloud" in court?

I don't know, you would have to ask Retribution exactly what was meant. But I took it to mean that, at least, whatever it was would not be tweeted live by reporters.

 

[Clio]

Something else popped up in my mind.

We know Becky's jumper was cut straight down the back. Proof that they couldn't raise her arms to remove it.

Rigor was present at the time of dismemberment.

Or it was present when NM first attempted dismemberment on Friday 20th.

 

[iclaudia]

With regard to one possible motive being jealousy/money. As well as the £50(?) cheque found in the loft in CML, I had forgotten about this



http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Becky-...ger-Facebook/story-28018789-detail/story.html

If this is true, I would also be annoyed at somebody lending a 16 year old £500 to buy a television. What 16 year old needs that kind of kit?!

 

[Tortoise]

Or it was present when NM first attempted dismemberment on Friday 20th.

whenever they/he undressed her

 

[ColourPurple]

Quote Originally Posted by jbelle View Post


I have followed a lot of these cases, and I have learned that the perpetrator often has no problem admitting to the murder, they just don't like admitting the sexual crimes or intent.
Austin Sigg is one example if I am not mistaken.

I'm not familiar with that case but it was certainly true of Ian Huntley and Mark Bridger. Also Alexander Pacteau, long before he murdered Karen Buckley, he was accused of an attempted rape and told police then that rape was the lowest of the low and that he'd rather be charged with murder than rape!