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

[ColourPurple]

If SH is found not guilty on all charges do you think she will be given a new identity? (I hate the thought of it because I really believe she was an equal partner in this with NM)

Yes, I think she's thought to be more involved than Maxine Carr ever was; she was in another town when Holly and Jessica died so the most she could have been invovled in was the cover up, but lying for Huntley was enough for her to need a new identity

 

[Alyce]

ah, I see they are talking about the other charges - the indecent images prob.

Oh ok, makes sense re the reporting restrictions then.

 

[Cherwell]

Can anyone guess as to why the judge has imposed reporting restrictions on his summing up? Is this normal practice? I have never followed a trial or been in a court before.

I think it suggests that there have been various things throughout the trial that have been subject to reporting restrictions. If they couldn't be reported then, they can't be reported now. Remember there has been no mention of SH's child, and there must surely have been references to her in court.

 

[Bluey]

Deleted, sorry I misread the original post

 

[Tortoise]

Are you kidding me?!?!?

*having palpitations at the thought of missing it*

we'll have to do shifts to keep watch on the court reports.

 

[Insp.Dots]

I'm pretty much of the same feeling...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

And me!!! I think that the others will probably have learned a very BIG lesson from this and no matter what they get in Sentencing, they still have to live with it in the real world!

 

[ColourPurple]

it is the crown's case that this was a kidnap conspiracy leading to murder. why the two have to both be present I don't know.

IMO NM wouldn't have said it was a plan to kidnap if it wasn't. it seems just so out there.

If the crime was really sexually motivated then a kidnap defending his mother was a better alternative to make up . And SH has confirmed that she did once tell him about a similar plan to teach a boy a lesson so it must've sounded feasible to them

 

[Clio]

it is the crown's case that this was a kidnap conspiracy leading to murder. why the two have to both be present I don't know.

IMO NM wouldn't have said it was a plan to kidnap if it wasn't. it seems just so out there.

What if it's part of the cover story. SH told NM about her foster mother threatening to "kidnap" SH's brother to try and stop him running away from home.It's possible they built on that.

 

[MamaJoJo]

Does she? Couldn't the jury decide that the kidnap story was rubbish, so there was no conspiring to kidnap Becky, but whatever did happened that day, SH was involved in? Or is it not as simple as that?

I don't believe there was a kidnap plan for that day (I don't believe they'd take their child with them for a start), but I can believe something happened which got out of hand. It could have even have been a row between SH and Becky which escalated for all we know. I just don't believe MN secretly went up there to kidnap or murder Becky, whilst SH was having her massive cigarette in blissful ignorance.

This!

 

[Clio]

ITV Becky Trial ‏@ITVBeckyTrial · 51s52 seconds ago
Here's what the jury must take into consideration to get to their verdicts. #beckywatts http://www.itv.com/news/west/2015-11-09/becky-watts-trial-what-the-jury-must-decide/ …

 

[Tortoise]

why the need for stun guns / batteries / handcuffs ?

also car backed up to house?

 

[Clio]

The jury in the Becky Watts trial has been given directions on what they must be sure of to reach guilty verdicts.


1. Whether Nathan Matthews is guilty of conspiracy to kidnap with Shauna Hoare and vice versa. The crown must prove that:

There was an agreement between the pair that Becky would be kidnapped.
There was an intention that both of the pair would play some part in the kidnap.
...

Whether Shauna Hoare is guilty of murder or manslaughter or none. The crown must prove that:

That Hoare participated in the kidnapping of Becky Watts intending that she should be killed or come to serious bodily harm to overcome her resistance.
In the course of the attack Matthews suffocated or strangled Becky while intending to kill her or cause her really serious bodily harm.
OR if Hoare participated in the kidnap of Becky, and reasonably believed that some harm might be caused to her this is manslaughter.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/2015-11-09/becky-watts-trial-what-the-jury-must-decide/

 

[Crazy Mama]

Just curious to know, if SH gets let off, will she get the contents of her house and her child back?

 

[Clio]

why the need for stun guns / batteries / handcuffs ?

Has the crown proved they were taken or is it part of NM's "story"

 

[Angelo]

I think it suggests that there have been various things throughout the trial that have been subject to reporting restrictions. If they couldn't be reported then, they can't be reported now. Remember there has been no mention of SH's child, and there must surely have been references to her in court.

I wonder if the four counts of "making indecent images of children" involves NM's and SH's daughter. This could be why she has not been mentioned.

 

[ColourPurple]

JE is exactly what is implied. If that's true, then if the jury decide there was no joint kidnap plan for example, then it follows that they cannot find SH guilty of murder.

It follows that they couldn't find her guilty by way of joint enterprise but there should still be an option to find her guilty of a standalone charge of murder, otherwise it seems to be a loophole anybody could use when they want to cover for somebody who was involved in a murder. So two people kill a person, person 1 wants to cover for person 2, so person 1 makes up a story that they alone planned to just kidnap the victim, then unless the court can prove that person 2 was involved in this imaginary plan (which they wouldnt be able to as it never existed) person 2 can't be convicted of murder

 

[Clio]

It follows that they couldn't find her guilty by way of joint enterprise but there should still be an option to find her guilty of a standalone charge of murder, otherwise it seems to be a loophole anybody could use when they want to cover for somebody who was involved in a murder. So two people kill a person, person 1 wants to cover for person 2, so person 1 makes up a story that they alone planned to just kidnap the victim, then unless the court can prove that person 2 was involved in this imaginary plan (which they wouldnt be able to as it never existed) person 2 can't be convicted of murder

Have a read of this and see what you think
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2015-11-09/becky-watts-trial-what-the-jury-must-decide/

 

[Alyce]

It follows that they couldn't find her guilty by way of joint enterprise but there should still be an option to find her guilty of a standalone charge of murder, otherwise it seems to be a loophole anybody could use when they want to cover for somebody who was involved in a murder. So two people kill a person, person 1 wants to cover for person 2, so person 1 makes up a story that they alone planned to just kidnap the victim, then unless the court can prove that person 2 was involved in this imaginary plan (which they wouldnt be able to as it never existed) person 2 can't be convicted of murder

Exactly this. I was just about to post something similar. So, NM could have cleverly made up the kidnap story ( which many of us do not believe ) knowing that the Jury would throw it out, and therefore, not be able to convict SH of murder on the back of this.

 

[ColourPurple]

Does she? Couldn't the jury decide that the kidnap story was rubbish, so there was no conspiring to kidnap Becky, but whatever did happened that day, SH was involved in? Or is it not as simple as that?

I don't believe there was a kidnap plan for that day (I don't believe they'd take their child with them for a start), but I can believe something happened which got out of hand. It could have even have been a row between SH and Becky which escalated for all we know. I just don't believe MN secretly went up there to kidnap or murder Becky, whilst SH was having her massive cigarette in blissful ignorance.

I agree, which is why I'm hoping the judge corrects that simplification

 

[MamaJoJo]

The jury in the Becky Watts trial has been given directions on what they must be sure of to reach guilty verdicts.


1. Whether Nathan Matthews is guilty of conspiracy to kidnap with Shauna Hoare and vice versa. The crown must prove that:

There was an agreement between the pair that Becky would be kidnapped.
There was an intention that both of the pair would play some part in the kidnap.
...

Whether Shauna Hoare is guilty of murder or manslaughter or none. The crown must prove that:

That Hoare participated in the kidnapping of Becky Watts intending that she should be killed or come to serious bodily harm to overcome her resistance.
In the course of the attack Matthews suffocated or strangled Becky while intending to kill her or cause her really serious bodily harm.
OR if Hoare participated in the kidnap of Becky, and reasonably believed that some harm might be caused to her this is manslaughter.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/2015-11-09/becky-watts-trial-what-the-jury-must-decide/

Oh, darn! The murder charge really is all wrapped up in the conspiracy to kidnap charge. I do not envy this jury.