GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #6

[Alyce]

It wasn't me who mentioned that it was the only opportunity for the jury to hear SH speak, that was another poster.

I have no legal training at all, but as you say, I did know that the right to remain silent can be used when initially being questioned, as in the police caution, but I was on the understanding that even at trial, a defendant can choose to remain silent, ie to not give evidence, sorry I was mistaken. Not the first time in my life that I've been wrong !

It was me who said I thought the videos were shown as being the only time the Jury would see SH speak.
Like you, I thought a defendant could choose not to give evidence, but, like you, I got that bit wrong.

 

[jessie]

Nope she will be cross examined by the prosecution barrister who will throw a load of implicating 'questions' at her. She can answer no comment or not answer, but the prosecution will continue with their questions. The jury are likely to infer an outcome from her reluctance to answer questions...

Thank you so much for that information Finkleyalex.

I actually look forward to that part of the trial, and hearing what sort of defence either of those two intend to give.

 

[Retribution]

So glad you're here, Retribution. We could have debated that for pages.

I think it would be easy enough to get a body from the front door to the car boot without anyone seeing. 10 second job.

yep it would be extremely easy. The car would only need to be reversed into the drive at a slight angle, with the boot open you wouldnt see much of the front door at all. Also, opposite the house is a cul-de-sac, so its not even directly opposite another house, so to speak.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/13/18/2D5F134700000578-3270610-image-a-3_1444759026220.jpg



view of back garden - showing what is behind the front driveway area

a makeshift carport?

 

[Insp.Dots]

JAMES IRELAND & DONOVAN DEMETRIUS

Assisting an offender – PLEADED NOT GUILTY

Just wondering, it was reported they picked NM & SH up from her Mum's then drove them back to cotton mill lane and to Barton Hill. Would they be 'guilty of assisting' IF in their opinion they were just giving NM a lift and HE was the one carrying stuff to KD &girlfriends house? Ie: It's not my shed, i thought I was just giving them a lift? I wonder if this is why they are saying Not Guilty?

 

[Cherwell]

It was me who said I thought the videos were shown as being the only time the Jury would see SH speak.
Like you, I thought a defendant could choose not to give evidence, but, like you, I got that bit wrong.

I don't think you're wrong. The defendant does have the right not to give evidence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and the defendant has no obligation to assist them.

 

[Kaly99]

It wasn't me who mentioned that it was the only opportunity for the jury to hear SH speak, that was another poster.

I have no legal training at all, but as you say, I did know that the right to remain silent can be used when initially being questioned, as in the police caution, but I was on the understanding that even at trial, a defendant can choose to remain silent, ie to not give evidence, sorry I was mistaken. Not the first time in my life that I've been wrong !

Must admit this was also my understanding. If it's true that a defendant has no right to refuse to give evidence at trial, I'm really surprised to learn that.

 

[jessie]

I don't think you're wrong. The defendant does have the right not to give evidence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and the defendant has no obligation to assist them.

Sorry, now I'm really confused ! Maybe I'll just wait to see what happens?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Shauna's defence about to start..... right when I need to do the school run and then go straight to the kids swimming lessons.

 

[Bluey]

JAMES IRELAND & DONOVAN DEMETRIUS

Assisting an offender – PLEADED NOT GUILTY

Just wondering, it was reported they picked NM & SH up from her Mum's then drove them back to cotton mill lane and to Barton Hill. Would they be 'guilty of assisting' IF in their opinion they were just giving NM a lift and HE was the one carrying stuff to KD &girlfriends house? Ie: It's not my shed, i thought I was just giving them a lift? I wonder if this is why they are saying Not Guilty?

I think the lift back to Cotton Mill Lane was in JI's car, which was noted to have gone from his work's car park. Later his car re-appeared at work, but the van had gone. The packages were moved in the van, the van seen on CCTV, so I don't think JI can just claim to have given NM and SH a lift.

Unless it was just KD that went back with the van, I wonder if KD can drive? I thought maybe not, hence the need to rope in JI.

DD I'm not sure about at all, it'll be interesting to hear the evidence against him, deleted texts seem suspicious

 

[YidArmyRach]

Must admit this was also my understanding. If it's true that a defendant has no right to refuse to give evidence at trial, I'm really surprised to learn that.

If someone doesn't use their voice to deny a crime, I'm always of the opinion they did it. I don't think she would gain anything from refusing to answer questions, or give evidence. Anything other than a "no" when asked, "did you do it", is a 'yes' in my book!

 

[Cherwell]

R v Cowan [1996] Q.B. 373 sets out the five steps that a court must take prior to a section 35 adverse inference being drawn:

The judge must tell the jury that the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution throughout and what the required standard is;
The judge must make clear to the jury that the defendant has the right to remain silent;
An inference from failure to give evidence cannot on its own prove guilt;
Therefore the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. The jury may not believe witnesses whose evidence the judge thought raised a prima facie case;
If, having considered the defence case, the jury concludes that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant's having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination, they may draw an adverse inference.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/

 

[PrimeSuspect]

ITV Becky Trial ‏@ITVBeckyTrial 5m5 minutes ago

SH defence meticulously going through each item found in the rucksack. List available here http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2015-10-15/other-items-found-in-the-shed/ …

 

[sar2them1984]

ITV Becky Trial ‏@ITVBeckyTrial 5m5 minutes ago

SH defence meticulously going through each item found in the rucksack. List available here http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2015-10-15/other-items-found-in-the-shed/ …

So it was just a duvet cover... Yes I'm thinking it was from Beckys bed. It may be blood stained but you can see from the photos that the duvet and pillows aren't so I'm thinking the blood was during the struggle - I'm guessing she was on the bed at the time

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Insp.Dots]

Sorry, now I'm really confused ! Maybe I'll just wait to see what happens?

Cherwell is right SH has the right to remain silent, but anything she says or does after arrest can be taken and used in evidence. If she doesn't want to speak or defend 'herself' she doesn't have to. the burden is completely on the Police and Proscecution to prove her guilt. It's the one thing IMO that really is right in our system and the thing that helps make sure that the guilty are locked up 'soundly' with no room for doubt!

 

[sar2them1984]

Cherwell is right SH has the right to remain silent, but anything she says or does after arrest can be taken and used in evidence. If she doesn't want to speak or defend 'herself' she doesn't have to. the burden is completely on the Police and Proscecution to prove her guilt. It's the one thing IMO that really is right in our system and the thing that helps make sure that the guilty are locked up 'soundly' with no room for doubt!

However should she choose to not answer questions whilst "on the stand" then she can be held in contempt of court

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Insp.Dots]

So it was just a duvet cover... Yes I'm thinking it was from Beckys bed. It may be blood stained but you can see from the photos that the duvet and pillows aren't so I'm thinking the blood was during the struggle - I'm guessing she was on the bed at the time

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

They could just have wrapped her up in it to put her in the boot. Then maybe put new cover on before AG got home.

 

[Insp.Dots]

However should she choose to not answer questions whilst "on the stand" then she can be held in contempt of court

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

IF they get her on the stand yes. Am thinking that her Defense won't risk it, she isn't as clever as she thinks. MOO

 

[jessie]

However should she choose to not answer questions whilst "on the stand" then she can be held in contempt of court

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Just looked this up on google. Hope I'm allowed to c/p it here, as I think it's a useful reference.

Two elements of this equality are particularly important:

the assumption of innocence until proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove guilt and until that time the accused is innocent, on an equal footing with the prosecution

the right to silence. No-one can be required to convict themselves. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt and if it cannot do this without the assistance of the accused then there is no proof. The right to silence was regarded as especially important in England where there is no written constitution. In the United States the right to silence of the accused is guaranteed by the fifth amendment. You can 'plead the fifth'

It should be noted that nowhere in this rather brief and partial outline has the word truth occurred. The aim of the trial is not to conduct an examination to unearth the truth about innocence or guilt. Truth is assumed to be a by-product of the conflict between the two parties to the trial.
http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cjs/26905.htm

 

[Cherwell]

Yes, the defendant has the right to choose not to go into the witness box at all. In that case s/he cannot be cross-examined by the prosecution.