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

[Tortoise]

so where are we - Wednesday, let's think

1 hour to settle in, appoint a foreperson, go to the loo, (there will be a long queue at the door of the ladies)
eat their lunch
afternoon - decide NM is guilty of murder

tomorrow - Thursday

whole day spent on SH re kidnap and murder. post murder cover up no disagreement.

Friday - morning JI & DD

Mid afternoon - verdicts

That's my prediction, failing that Monday morning, with the weekend to sit on it and be sure.

 

[Edinlass]

Ok lol I thought wow no way will be hearing verdicts today surely

 

[Clio]

ITV Have published the 21 questions as well now

http://www.itv.com/news/west/2015-11-11/becky-watts-trial-the-routes-to-verdicts/

 

[Alyce]

so where are we - Wednesday, let's think

1 hour to settle in, appoint a foreperson, go to the loo, (there will be a long queue at the door of the ladies)
eat their lunch
afternoon - decide NM is guilty of murder

tomorrow - Thursday

whole day spent on SH re kidnap and murder. post murder cover up no disagreement.

Friday - morning JI & DD

Mid afternoon - verdicts

That's my prediction, failing that Monday morning, with the weekend to sit on it and be sure.

Tortoise - from your experience on Jury.... do they have to work through the defendants in the same way the Trail went ?
What I mean is, if I were on the Jury, I might want to think about covering JI and DD first, to get the relatively lower charged Defendants done. I would then feel something had been achieved and the remainder of the time, however long it takes, would be for the two main Defendants.
Or is there a protocol ?

Edit to add ............. I'm going for Monday at least. I have the feeling that if they have only just made their decisions by Friday midday, that they might all want to go home and have the week end to reflect on their verdicts, before coming back to reconfirm on Monday.
I even think it might go to Tuesday, though I sincerely hope not.

 

[sar2them1984]

A lighthearted look at jury service
http://www.theguardian.com/law/shortcuts/2013/feb/21/10-things-jurors-need-to-know


Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[sar2them1984]

Tortoise - from your experience on Jury.... do they have to work through the defendants in the same way the Trail went ?
What I mean is, if I were on the Jury, I might want to think about covering JI and DD first, to get the relatively lower charged Defendants done. I would then feel something had been achieved and the remainder of the time, however long it takes, would be for the two main Defendants.
Or is there a protocol ?

I think the foreman can kind of steer that.

Has a foreman already been chosen? Ours was chosen before the case started - that was a mission in itself

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I think if I were on this jury I'd be hoping it was all done by Friday. I would then have a very reflective and probably drunken weekend where I would cry a lot.

 

[Alyce]

I think the foreman can kind of steer that.

Has a foreman already been chosen? Ours was chosen before the case started - that was a mission in itself

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Oh that's interesting re the pre choosing of the foreperson
It would help I suppose, if you knew you were going to be the foreperson, the way you might make notes etc...
Also, for any Jury members who absolutely would not want to be foreperson, it would also help them, take away the anxiety of worrying who it was going to be.

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise - from your experience on Jury.... do they have to work through the defendants in the same way the Trail went ?
What I mean is, if I were on the Jury, I might want to think about covering JI and DD first, to get the relatively lower charged Defendants done. I would then feel something had been achieved and the remainder of the time, however long it takes, would be for the two main Defendants.
Or is there a protocol ?

there is no protocol. they may well decide to get JI & DD out of the way to concentrate their minds, but I am surmising that they will dive straight in with a show of hands as to where they are as a starting position with NM & SH. It seems the most likely place to start, with the two main defendants, and establishing how in tune you all are (or aren't) to begin with. The show of hands not being binding on anyone of course (or OBVIOUSLY as NM would say) but to highlight where the majority of their time is going to be spent.

 

[Alyce]

I think if I were on this jury I'd be hoping it was all done by Friday. I would then have a very reflective and probably drunken weekend where I would cry a lot.

There is also - which I had not thought of earlier - the fact that, if they have got their verdicts all agreed, then they would want to get them out there and let Becky's family have the earliest possible result, not have to wait over a week end.

 

[skibaboo]

And now we wait.

image link

The right verdict lease:

#JusticeForBecky

 

[Alyce]

there is no protocol. they may well decide to get JI & DD out of the way to concentrate their minds, but I am surmising that they will dive straight in with a show of hands as to where they are as a starting position with NM & SH. It seems the most likely place to start, with the two main defendants, and establishing how in tune you all are (or aren't) to begin with. The show of hands not being binding on anyone of course (or OBVIOUSLY as NM would say) but to highlight where the majority of their time is going to be spent.

Thanks for that. It must be, as you have said before, a huge relief to finally be able to talk to each other about the case.

 

[Clio]

Thanks for that. It must be, as you have said before, a huge relief to finally be able to talk to each other about the case.

They will have been together all this time on breaks (when sent out of court for legal discussions), lunchtimes some of them may have stuck together. They will have bonded to a degree. I would be amazed if they hadn't already talked a bit, even though they are not supposed to. On one jury service I did there were a group of jurors on a fraud case. They had been there for something like 15 weeks - they were almost like a family!

 

[YidArmyRach]

there is no protocol. they may well decide to get JI & DD out of the way to concentrate their minds, but I am surmising that they will dive straight in with a show of hands as to where they are as a starting position with NM & SH. It seems the most likely place to start, with the two main defendants, and establishing how in tune you all are (or aren't) to begin with. The show of hands not being binding on anyone of course (or OBVIOUSLY as NM would say) but to highlight where the majority of their time is going to be spent.

Hyperthetically, if their starting point is that they all agree on guilty verdicts for SH & MN and, say, innocent for JI and DD .... how long do you think they'd have to pretend they were deliberating, rather than coming straight back out and saying "we're done"?

Surely a jury member has pretty much made up their mind by now, having sat through weeks of evidence, and the closing speeches? I don't know, as I've never done jury service. But those who have - by the time you came together with the rest of the jury to deliberate, had most people already got a decision in mind?

 

[Clio]

ITV Becky Trial ‏@ITVBeckyTrial · 13s13 seconds ago
We will report any verdicts that are returned as soon as we are able to do so. #beckywatts

 

[Tortoise]

Hyperthetically, if their starting point is that they all agree on guilty verdicts for SH & MN and, say, innocent for JI and DD .... how long do you think they'd have to pretend they were deliberating, rather than coming straight back out and saying "we're done"?

Surely a jury member has pretty much made up their mind by now, having sat through weeks of evidence, and the closing speeches? I don't know, as I've never done jury service. But those who have - by the time you came together with the rest of the jury to deliberate, had most people already got a decision in mind?

If their starting point is that they all agree on guilt, then I think they will see it only decent that they run through argument against them all being right, purely because it is a big thing to convict someone of in relation to life sentences. But that is not to say it will take them ages to do that, I wouldn't expect to hear anything back until tomorrow afternoon at least.

Yes, we did already have our verdicts in mind as soon as we got in there. But there were one or two cautious people (myself included) who elected to play devils advocate. It didn't work lol. In this case however, I'd like to think they'll all be in agreement but without having been in court it's impossible to say.

 

[Kaly99]

Yes me, I'm not convinced that Shauna is guilty of conspiracy to Kidnap or murder. I know I'm not the only one too, though it's sometimes difficult to speak up and go against the crowd.

I dont think we've heard 100% truth from Nathan's story though I feel that may be because so much is not being made public (as yet, if ever) , in part to protect the family and or Becky's reputation.

But I don't believe Nathan and Shauna planned to kidnap Becky and hold her as a sex slave etc then kill her and I don't believe there is any vampire element or such story ...

I'm quite open to being proved wrong though and if the Jury decided that it was pre planned kidnapping and murder with a sexual motive then I shan't be surprised as I trust that they know what they're doing.

I basically agree. For me the difficulty is that we still don't really know what happened. I find the prosecution's sex slave theory the least likely scenario of the lot, and unlike NM's version it hasn't been tested or fleshed out. It still has so many unanswered questions: where were they planning to keep Becky in that overcrowded little house, what if Becky's dad had called the police straight away and they'd come knocking at the door, how long were they planning to keep her, etc. It's one thing to poke holes in NM's story, another to present a realistic alternative to it, and (at least on what we've heard) I don't think the prosecution has done that.

NM's story also seems farfetched, but to me a little less so. Becky's dad's statement essentially supports the defence case, not the prosecution's. If NM's story is true, then it does seem a little difficult to believe SH knew nothing about it - I can imagine him sending her out into the garden with the toddler while he put this kidnap plan into practice. I don't believe she had any direct part in it; aside from anything else, I doubt NM would've allowed it (I mean, this is a guy who didn't even like her smoking). If I accepted NM's story as true then I'd really be on the fence as to whether SH should be convicted of manslaughter (not murder). I'm not sure it's been proven that she knew about it, even if it seems likely she did.

If, on the other hand, there was no kidnap plan at all, then it's quite possible SH played no part in the killing itself, and that it was an argument between NM and Becky that escalated out of control. I'd probably convict her of perverting the course of justice for covering for him, but not murder or manslaughter.

Basically, to convict her of murder/manslaughter, I'd first need to be convinced she was guilty of conspiracy to kidnap, and I'm not...

 

[sar2them1984]

Idk as I've not been involved in a ctrial with multiple defenders but once they have a verdict in one individuals charges can they go into court to pass that verdict or do they have to wait until they have decided on all verdicts for all defendents

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Clio]

Idk as I've not been involved in a ctrial with multiple defenders but once they have a verdict in one individuals charges can they go into court to pass that verdict or do they have to wait until they have decided on all verdicts for all defendents

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

They will need to have verdicts for all defendants before returning to the courtroom.

 

[Alyce]

Idk as I've not been involved in a ctrial with multiple defenders but once they have a verdict in one individuals charges can they go into court to pass that verdict or do they have to wait until they have decided on all verdicts for all defendents

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

I dont know either but I would think - to begin with - they want all the verdicts at the same time.
I suppose, as time passes, if the Jury then indicate that they cannot reach a verdict for one or two of the Defendants, then they might allow verdicts to be given for the 2 that they have decided upon, whilst the Jury go back to deliberate on the final 2.