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

[Wallace]

Oh dear I see people are starting to turn against the Galsworthys for their decision to go to the press today and for decorating Beckys room now when it was such as state before...feel really sorry for them

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

I think it was a poor decision to appear in front of the press, especially the TV stuff.

Far more dignified to keep things private.

 

[Beesknees]

lovely post Beesknees, enjoyed reading. and have always enjoyed your input very much. don't go just yet! you have to be here for the sentencing!

Of course not! I will be here since 9am tomorrow just in case the judge wants to beggin early lolol :judge:

 

[Wallace]

Of course not! I will be here since 9am tomorrow just in case the judge wants to beggin early lolol :judge:

Or needs to 'phone a friend'. ;-)

 

[ColourPurple]

Oh dear I see people are starting to turn against the Galsworthys for their decision to go to the press today and for decorating Beckys room now when it was such as state before...feel really sorry for them

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Where?

IMO there is no right or wrong way to deal with something like this:

If they want to talk to the press that's OK
If they don't want to talk to the press thats OK
If they want to keep Becky's room as it was that's OK
If they want to redecorate it how she would have liked it to be that's OK

 

[Tortoise]

gosh, there's an awful lot of interest in my wording of posts today

 

[sar2them1984]

I think it was a poor decision to appear in front of the press, especially the TV stuff.

Far more dignified to keep things private.

I guess that they thought they would tackle it head on. If they didn't speak to the press then I'm sure someone else would have. Least they could show their side of things...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

For you all here, this buzz bollock :laughing: :floorlaugh: wish the best. You were all great

fellows and we'll go on seeing ones anothers around here :loveyou:

THANK YOU! :daisy:

It was a highly emotive case it's no wonder emotions ran high on here too at times. I think no matter our own personal opinions on who was involved we all shared one thing... the hope that Becky and her family would get justice and I think they have.

 

[sar2them1984]

Where?

IMO there is no right or wrong way to deal with something like this:

If they want to talk to the press that's OK
If they don't want to talk to the press thats OK
If they want to keep Becky's room as it was that's OK
If they want to redecorate it how she would have liked it to be that's OK

Mainly tabloid newspaper comments sections.. the Daily Fail and the people who I do not mention...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Anyone want to speculate on sentences?

my guess

NM whole life
SH life

 

[ColourPurple]

Mainly tabloid newspaper comments sections.. the Daily Fail and the people who I do not mention...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Ah I just think "sod them" . Whatever they did someone would disagree

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder if SH's QC will bring in anything in mitigation about her being controlled or abused by NM

 

[YidArmyRach]

I think it was a poor decision to appear in front of the press, especially the TV stuff.

Far more dignified to keep things private.

I'd agree with that. Its always horrible to see tv interviews and newspaper interviews (esp those people get paid for - I'm NOT suggesting that is the case here) as it does sometimes take away the dignity of the deceased person, who isn't around to put their side of the story across, and will probably not have wanted private, personal details of their lives put out into the media. And you'll always get people wanting their 5 minutes of fame on the back of a brief meeting years before.

As for the bedroom comment, that made me cry. Such a shame her bedroom wasn't decorated and made nice when she was there to enjoy it, rather than afterwards - that must be killing them (sorry for the wording, can't think of another way of putting it). I can understand that it is one of the last things they can do for Becky, and they can sit in there and be close to her. However, those sorts of comments are best left unsaid, as it will make some people think "too late now".

 

[ColourPurple]

Can I ask for a favour?

Would you mind to give me the links where information has been released as well as family interviews, etc, since the verdicts. I haven't read anything. I only read it all here on WS and I was many pages late. To read all your posts here I still had not the time to go to the MSM and read it all from yesterday but I saw here by your posts that a lot of new information is coming to light.

Where can I find the police speech after the release of the verdicts? I's love to read it too.

Ohhh I use to see Sky News every so often as I have it. Yesterday I would be watching and listening to it in the kitchen while I was preparing things, but I never thought they had the verdicts. How could I know? I lost it all. So, if you can provide the links for the main things I am so thanked :bee: lol

Not sure where the transcripts are but there are a few videos on youtube. You might struggle with the accents though

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmUFcccXqYI

www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_alMUQmB3U

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA5W3YYT3_A

 

[Orange Tabby]

We have no idea if the interrogators made note of Shauna Hoare's remarks about Becky using the past tense. Or if they followed up with questions specifically concerning such remarks.

We've seen only a small bit of the interrogation video(s).

Yes, you're quite right. Thank you for correcting me. Here's what I should have posted for correctness -

So, they charged SH with attempting to pervert the course of justice because they didn't believe her accounts that she knew nothing about Becky's disappearance. It seems to me that they may have missed or excused her past tense references to Becky the week before, because they didn't charge her with murder for several months.

Here's what we are looking at: Shauna Hoare speaks of Becky in the past tense in interviews with the police in March. But Hoare is not charged with murder until months later.

What does this mean? There are several possibilities, and these are only a few:

1. The police didn't notice Hoare's use of the past tense and/or didn't understand its significance.

2. The police did notice, understood the significance, and:

2a. Initially believed that all this proved was that Hoare knew Matthews had murdered or killed Becky.

2b. Believed from the very beginning that Hoare was jointly guilty of murder along with Matthews but didn't think they had sufficient evidence to support bringing such a charge in court against Hoare until additional evidence emerged much later.

2c. Believed from the very beginning that Hoare was guilty of murder AND believed that they had sufficient evidence to support bringing such a charge in court, but the initial charging decision was made by the CPS against the advice or the input of the police investigators.​

I respect your analysis and I have learned a lot about this case from your posts, which I always enjoy reading.

I think your line of thinking is certainly a possibility.

But there are other possibilities as well, ones which encompass both police understanding of the significance Hoare's remarks as well as the lack of an early murder charge against her. I think either (2b) or (2c) are reasonable possibilities.

 

[Tortoise]

Here's what we are looking at: Shauna Hoare speaks of Becky in the past tense in interviews with the police in March. But Hoare is not charged with murder until months later.

What does this mean? There are several possibilities, and these are only a few:

1. The police didn't notice Hoare's use of the past tense and/or didn't understand its significance.

2. The police did notice, understood the significance, and:

2a. Initially believed that all this proved was that Hoare knew Matthews had murdered or killed Becky.

2b. Believed from the very beginning that Hoare was jointly guilty of murder along with Matthews but didn't think they had sufficient evidence to support bringing such a charge in court against Hoare until additional evidence emerged much later.

2c. Believed from the very beginning that Hoare was guilty of murder AND believed that they had sufficient evidence to support bringing such a charge in court, but the initial charging decision was made by the CPS against the advice or the input of the police investigators.​

I respect your analysis and I have learned a lot about this case from your posts, which I always enjoy reading.

I think your line of thinking is certainly a possibility.

But there are other possibilities as well, ones which encompass both police understanding of the significance Hoare's remarks as well as the lack of an early murder charge against her. I think either (2b) or (2c) are reasonable possibilities.

I think you are right and as a result of what you have posted I have changed my thinking, and I agree it could very possibly be that they spotted it and were waiting to adduce further evidence before bringing the further charge/s.

Thanks.

 

[jessie]

Anyone want to speculate on sentences?

my guess

NM whole life
SH life

The longest possible imo, I wouldn't like to think these two ever walk the streets again.

I was really surprised to read a poster (sorry can't recall whom) mentioning that Perverting the Cause of Justice can carry a life sentence. I had no idea it was such a serious crime with such a heavy penalty. Learnt a lot here.

I don't agree with concurrent sentences either. Each crime committed deserves a term to be served on a nonconcurrent basis - OMOO.

 

[Orange Tabby]

gosh, there's an awful lot of interest in my wording of posts today

I think it's because you are a thoughtful poster who commands the respect of the folks here. When you post something, we all take it very seriously.

 

[Tortoise]

She surely will get time added for her deceit to the family commencing from the first day, and lack of remorse or any admission.

 

[Edinlass]

I think it's because you are a thoughtful poster who commands the respect of the folks here. When you post something, we all take it very seriously.

I agree

Sentencing tomorrow...what are people's thoughts on how long etc.

 

[Tortoise]

I think it's because you are a thoughtful poster who commands the respect of the folks here. When you post something, we all take it very seriously.

Aww :blushing: :cheers:


there was me thinking people have had enough of me