GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #15

[Insp.Dots]

I think his version of the kidnap for punishment is utter rubbish. But kidnap with a sexual motive is backed up by the evidence, and that evidence implicates SH too. If there were no prior texts and no searches for a petite 16 year old, then I would be struggling to make sense of SH's involvement.

I also think we have become so involved in the minutiae of everything - how long it takes to smoke, whether the rabbit had a carrot or a bowl of dried food, whether the door slammed, who wore the make up etc.. that it is easy to lose a sense of what they are really asking the court to believe about that morning.

When I stand back with just the mere idea that two people with an intense dislike for the victim, turned up at the house, with a spurious reason for being there that day anyway, and at a time when Becky would be alone, it takes me all of a minute to decide what happened. A murder occurred, was it silent?, one of the couple says she knew not a jot about it, heard no screams, no bumping around, saw nothing and her partner looked like he normally did 20 minutes later. Car was packed up, everything put back to normal, nothing disturbed, clothes and laptop all packed away too. All that was different was there was no more Becky. And then she says she was outside for the time that it took, in the rain, smoking one cigarette.

That is a reality check I think.

Evening all, Very well put Tortoise. I don't think I have ever felt as frustrated at 'the end' of a case. I'm hoping post verdicts the Newspapers & Media will be able to give us more info so we can make better sense of things. I truly hope they get JUSTICE FOR BECKY!

 

[Wallace]

Hello, good evening WS fellows

The compilation from today's court session is now ready. The link to access it is here bellow this text in my signature.


I will now catch up along last thread as I followed it until page 45 and it ended at page 67.

What do you think of the changing of charges related to JI and DD? Can´t it be a way for the jury to think 'if the pros was wrong about JI and DD's charges could also be about SH and NM'?

Do you think it might 'weaken' the pros points?

Two days ago I asked here if it would be allowed the judge's summing and considerations to the jury to be reported live as happened with the previous phases in court.

I was answered 'yes' there is no reason not to be as it uses to be. Why wasn't it then? Why this case appears to be so strange?

This case seems to be full of taboos and its prosecution seems to have done a job as good as if it was a case of a robber who had stolen na apple in a market. Something of minor importance :gaah:



:Welcome1: to the new members!

I think we need to wait for the verdicts before criticising the prosecution, judge etc.

As several people have already stated, we are not seeing 100% of everything that has gone on in court. We need to have faith that these professionals know what they are doing. But most importantly we need to have faith that the jury will be able to make the right decisions.

 

[babame]

I truly hope Becky does get the justice she deserves.

This case has been heart wrenching and exhausting as an outsider, I can't begin to imagine what it has been like for the family and friends of Becky.

 

[YidArmyRach]

Marking my place for tomorrow. Goodnight all.

 

[Beesknees]

I think we need to wait for the verdicts before criticising the prosecution, judge etc.

As several people have already stated, we are not seeing 100% of everything that has gone on in court. We need to have faith that these professionals know what they are doing. But most importantly we need to have faith that the jury will be able to make the right decisions.

I know and you are right. Sometimes I am so frustrated and have so much need to see the culprits strongly punished for what they have done that it takes the best of me and seems that all that was done for Justice for Becky is never enough for the enormity of the demage she endured... :sorry:


Good night all. Tomorrow's another day...

 

[edgedweller]

Evening BeesKnees and thank you as always for the upated compilation.

Re the Judge's summary. I think we will get to hear all of it, eventually. I just think he did not want the journos tweeting in bit by bit. There is a good summary from the Guardian newspaper of what he has said so far.

Here's the link to save you going all the way back through the previous thread.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...al-jury-told-to-reach-verdict-without-emotion

I don't understand why the jurors aren't allowed to 'experiment' with the evidence (suitcase). Legal, any thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[edgedweller]

Really don't understand why it has to have been a kidnap for SH to be convicted of murder. What if the kidnap plot was a complete fabrication, and NM tried it on with BW, or confronted her about something, there was an altercation, SH got involved and they both killed Becky? Is it because there's no evidence of that? But the texts about teenagers and the FB messages about Becky running the house show a possible reason for conflict between SH, NM and BW. I personally think that's what happened - spur of the moment killing but at the last minute they tacitly 'agreed' she must die.

E to correct spelling. Running the house, not ruining...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wallace]

I know and you are right. Sometimes I am so frustrated and have so much need to see the culprits strongly punished for what they have done that it takes the best of me and seems that all that was done for Justice for Becky is never enough for the enormity of the demage she endured... :sorry:


Good night all. Tomorrow's another day...

Nothing to be sorry about.

 

[Legal]

Hi Edgedweller! A defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial jury with all evidence presented in open court. No new evidence is allowed into the jury room, including the jury conducting experiments, because the defendant wouldn't have the chance to cross-examine the new evidence or argue against it.

 

[FeistyCat76]

Thank you all for the great twitter and media coverage! Being in the U.S., I'm able to catch posts when I wake up and when I get home from work. I don't usually have anything to add in posts because all you sharp ladies cover all the bases!

Sent from my GT-P5210 using Tapatalk

 

[Bathsheba]

I could see that happening tallmansix except Becky was wearing a onesie and a jumper (if I remember correctly).

 

[cottonweaver]

Evening all, Very well put Tortoise. I don't think I have ever felt as frustrated at 'the end' of a case. I'm hoping post verdicts the Newspapers & Media will be able to give us more info so we can make better sense of things. I truly hope they get JUSTICE FOR BECKY!

Must say Insp.Dots that I felt the same yesterday as I followed the summing up.
Even with a portion of it unreleased ( for obviously very good reasons we are not privy to) I can't see why in the preceding, open, summing-up the Judge could not have talked around the general principles more.

I think a lot of the UK would have been following this case through the national press and it was a good moment to also help them to u'stand the general principles re the legal aspects the jury has to consider,.

Ok the judge said don't follow your emotions, you can't favour the Pros over say the Defence and then this was interesting of course:

"Of the alleged plot, the judge said: “There is no direct evidence of an agreement to kidnap Ms Watts. That is not unusual. Those who commit crime do not always disclose to those who are not parties to the conspiracy what they [are] doing" and
"You will need to examine all the evidence to determine whether the crown have made you sure that Mr Matthews and Ms Hoare were parties to an agreement to kidnap Ms Watts.”
Plus an unexplained point about no jury experiments please( which Legal has explained for us) and the confirmation about "joint enterprise" but
that was basically it..........let's hope all the other important legal guidance was given during the media restricted portion, but again IMO this was a missed opportunity for the general public/juries of the future.

This article explains some of the poor outcomes due to jurors only feeling safe to convict with "direct" evidence and how this relates to poor conviction rates
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/17/jurors-judges-legal-advice-report

I was also thinking of the recent Vicky Pryce trial collapse too. (jury was discharged by the judge, who said there was a "fundamental deficit in understanding") here's a link which notes:
"In 2010, the Ministry of Justice commissioned research into jury behaviour. It found that a third of jurors failed to correctly identify the key issues in a trial......One of her findings in 2010 was that many jurors wanted more guidance on how they should conduct their deliberations and this has resulted in some new guidance on jury deliberation, which is currently being used on a trial basis at a number of courts.". so let's hope this BW jury got their extra guidance in the closed part of the summary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21529452

Naturally my point is not that juries lack capacity, but rather guidance and I am hoping this is not the case here in the BW trial. As, apparently, we'll never see the script of the summing up, we'll never know.

ETA - I thought Judge was totally finished with summing up , he is going again today - IGNORE ALL OF THE ABOVE- this case is sending me doollally!:scared:

 

[Tortoise]

Morning cottonweaver, and to everyone of course,

what did you feel was lacking as regards legal guidance and instructions to the jury?

was it that he didn't specifically say you may use circumstantial evidence in your deliberations?

 

[cottonweaver]

Came across this whilst looking for the previous link - some posters have sat on juries here too, so thought I would paste

9."The role of the foreman is crucial in defusing arguments and ensuring each juror has their fair say. But pressure – watch-tapping, huffing, raised eyebrows – will still be directed towards those struggling to reach a decision. ...... It is unlikely you will ever witness peer pressure as intense as this elsewhere in your life. You will witness the best and worst sides of humanity in that room. It will both exhaust and invigorate you.

10. Steel yourself for the anxiety you will experience when seeing the reaction of both the defendant in the dock – and their family and friends in the gallery – as the verdict is announced by the foreman. They will look you all in the eyes, regardless of whether they are elated or furious. That moment will stay with you for ever – as will those intense hours of deliberation with your fellow jurors. View the whole process as a precious – and vitally important – life experience, rather than a chore or inconvenience. Oh, and you will never need, or want, to watch Jeremy Kyle ever again."

http://www.theguardian.com/law/shortcuts/2013/feb/21/10-things-jurors-need-to-know

and an appropriate defence of the jury's need to be informed /ask questions about basics such as "reasonable doubt " vs " theoretical possibility.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/20/vicky-pryce-jury-did-its-duty

 

[mrazda71]

Like many on this board I have been interested in the case since the original Facebook appeal on 23rd Feb and have read every thread, tweet and news article and in particular Bees knees excellent summary.

My problem is the motive that day. The only way a kidnap plot would have succeeded (with or without SH help) was if Becky came back unharmed and unwilling to report the kidnap to parents or police. I can't comprehend that scenario. If she did report anything, NM would have easily been traced as the kidnapper that day.

So like many on this board I'm looking elsewhere for a motive.

I suspect one of two scenarios fits the evidence.

NM said he intended to scare Becky that day, like he has done regularly in the past. Not a kidnap scare, just jumping out on her in expectedly like has been mentioned in court. But it was not that simple once the scene has been painted.

In an early statement it was said Becky returned home and had a shower.

I suspect NM entered house on that day and decided to either spy (voyeuristic) on Becky in the shower and got caught or tried to scare her whilst she was vulnerable (only a towel) when coming out of the shower.

A struggle ensued, he had to keep her quiet at all costs, his rage got the better of him and he hit her, everything was a blur after that as he sought purely to silence her.

Enter SH who has heard the stomp stomp stomp of the struggle. She says phone an ambulance but NM is already facing ruin, if Becky survives and tells the tale his family will down him.

Then I wondered if he was filming he in the shower, batteries where for a camera and the memory cards to store and distribute the voyeuristic images?

Becky was wearing clothes when she died, a onesie and jumper it's believed, which had to be cut off for the dismemberment.

Oops read further down and it's already been said.

 

[Scorpio5]

Beckys Mum, Dad, Brother, Stepmum and extended families must feel shattered - I only hope that along with justice for Becky, they get support for the end of the trial and the aftermath, when reporting restrictions won't be in place.

 

[Tortoise]

Like many on this board I have been interested in the case since the original Facebook appeal on 23rd Feb and have read every thread, tweet and news article and in particular Bees knees excellent summary.

My problem is the motive that day. The only way a kidnap plot would have succeeded (with or without SH help) was if Becky came back unharmed and unwilling to report the kidnap to parents or police. I can't comprehend that scenario. If she did report anything, NM would have easily been traced as the kidnapper that day.

So like many on this board I'm looking elsewhere for a motive.

I suspect one of two scenarios fits the evidence.

NM said he intended to scare Becky that day, like he has done regularly in the past. Not a kidnap scare, just jumping out on her in expectedly like has been mentioned in court. But it was not that simple once the scene has been painted.

In an early statement it was said Becky returned home and had a shower.

I suspect NM entered house on that day and decided to either spy (voyeuristic) on Becky in the shower and got caught or tried to scare her whilst she was vulnerable (only a towel) when coming out of the shower.

A struggle ensued, he had to keep her quiet at all costs, his rage got the better of him and he hit her, everything was a blur after that as he sought purely to silence her.

Enter SH who has heard the stomp stomp stomp of the struggle. She says phone an ambulance but NM is already facing ruin, if Becky survives and tells the tale his family will down him.

Then I wondered if he was filming he in the shower, batteries where for a camera and the memory cards to store and distribute the voyeuristic images?

I think motive here is being confused with a genuine need to try and understand how he/they planned to get away with a rape say, if they planned to leave her alive.

I don't think we can get inside the mind/s of a person who carries out such a plan. There are too many unknowns about this because he/they are determined at all costs to hide their true intentions. I do think however that there must have been a plan - this would have been planned meticulously as we have evidence of how they did indeed go to great meticulous lengths to cover their tracks and left very few to almost no 'hard' clues or DNA. The ones they did leave were tiny when you think that a murder and dismemberment occurred.

I think their plan would have been dark, twisted and quite horrendous, to have ensured they would get away with leaving Becky too scared to report them. Without a doubt she would not be confused by a disguise. I am not really that concerned about getting that deep into their minds. It isn't a place I would ever comprehend I don't think.

 

[cottonweaver]

Morning cottonweaver, and to everyone of course,

what did you feel was lacking as regards legal guidance and instructions to the jury?

was it that he didn't specifically say you may use circumstantial evidence in your deliberations?

Hi TT and all,

-I wanted to hear him spend some time on how to weigh circumstantial ( as opposed to direct ) evidence and how important the cumulative/holistic evaluation is to weighing it, as have said before....
-secondly, a proper talk around what "reasonable doubt" actually means - how to get around that very subjective word "reasonable" and what it means to be sure these days as a juror. Is that 95'/, or 100'/, - beyond all possibility or common sense probabillity as per the reasonable man/woman
- legal guidance around credibility of witnesses, if they are suspected to be lying, whether inferences can be drawn that all their testimony should be discounted or rather that is not the case
So those are examples.....If they haven't had that explained in at least a pamphlet or in the closed summing, I feel sorry for them, I would not like to be in their shoes at all.

specifics of this case - just a few
Am hoping in the closed section that the judge gave some advice on specifics as well as the general legal principles above eg. in terms of drawing "inferences" in the change of Pros charges for some of those defendants. Also specific evidence by Defence such as NM is mentally ill as they mentioned it in their final Defence comments on this. ( If he is I expect we'll naturally hear about this during sentence mitigation but I hope he has, in the closed section drawn attention to the evidence for this as they have banged on about him not being a rational man etc and that is the basis for the implausible story )
anyway won't add more in same post - it will be so long....!

ETA - I thought Judge was finished , he is going again today - IGNORE ALL OF THE ABOVE- this case is sending me doollally!:scared:

 

[tallmansix]

Becky was wearing clothes when she died, a onesie and jumper it's believed, which had to be cut off for the dismemberment.

Oops read further down and it's already been said.

Thanks, I've been over thinking this for too long now. Glad you quoted me, I went to edit some spelling errors and deleted by mistake.

 

[Tortoise]

Hi TT and all,

-I wanted to hear him spend some time on how to weigh circumstantial ( as opposed to direct ) evidence and how important the cumulative/holistic evaluation is to weighing it, as have said before....
-secondly, a proper talk around what "reasonable doubt" actually means - how to get around that very subjective word "reasonable" and what it means to be sure these days as a juror. Is that 95'/, or 100'/, - beyond all possibility or common sense probabillity as per the reasonable man/woman
- legal guidance around credibility of witnesses, if they are suspected to be lying, whether inferences can be drawn that all their testimony should be discounted or rather that is not the case
So those are examples.....If they haven't had that explained in at least a pamphlet or in the closed summing, I feel sorry for them, I would not like to be in their shoes at all.

specifics of this case - just a few
Am hoping in the closed section that the judge gave some advice on specifics as well as the general legal principles above eg. in terms of drawing "inferences" in the change of Pros charges for some of those defendants. Also specific evidence by Defence such as NM is mentally ill as they mentioned it in their final Defence comments on this. ( If he is I expect we'll naturally hear about this during sentence mitigation but I hope he has, in the closed section drawn attention to the evidence for this as they have banged on about him not being a rational man etc and that is the basis for the implausible story )
anyway won't add more in same post - it will be so long....!

With regard to your first part, my experience was that everyone on the jury understood very well that the decision involves everything you have heard - a picture emerges, you cannot avoid knowing what you are sure about and what you are unsure about and if the story makes sense. You will automatically know if the case that the prosecution is trying to build or has built against the defendants fits with what you have seen and heard. It slots into place or doesn't. Everyone understands that you cannot easily try a case if you have nothing more to work on than the details of the crime itself.

The jury will not have heard inadmissible evidence, that would be argued out between QCs and the judge before it is presented, while the jury is sent out of the courtroom.

With regards to understanding reasonable doubt, the definition of that weighed really REALLY heavy with me, until the point where we went inside the jury room. Before that I kind of thought I have to decide if I am certain on my own, be sure of my judgement, what if I am a bad judge? what if I am wrong?

You are not instructed on its meaning, further than to say you are told you must be sure that the defendant's case is not reasonably or possibly true, and sure in your decision of what is true.

However, once there is this coming together of 11 or 12 minds, the worry about that aspect lessens. When you find out that others have the same view, or a different view on pieces of the evidence. Thorough discussion then guides you with how to reach a decision on those aspects that are causing a problem. It is always helpful to weigh up both sides of the argument to assist with the decision making process. And in some cases, it has to go to retrial if the jurors can't agree. So I don't think it is insurmountable - if you can't decide amongst you as a group then the case hasn't been made or successfully defended. If the verdict comes back not guilty then I think it is absolute proof that the case just isn't there.

As for NM being mentally ill, personally I don't think that's relevant to the deliberations. His defence team would have put up a different plea I feel.