GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #11

[epiphany]

Hard to believe that SH claims the "kidnapping" text messages were just the two joking around & exchanging banter esp since when a young schoolgirl, she was sexually assaulted on her way to school.

They are both pretty twisted & damaged imo

 

[Cherwell]

Think of this.

NM is planning to kidnap BW. It all goes to plan and she is alive in the boot of the car.

He tells SH he is just going out on an errand, drives off with BW and takes her to the woods, leaving her there.

He returns to the house of AG/DG and AG and SH ask him where BW is. She was in when AG left for her hospital appointment, and when they arrived, her music was playing, and she's disappeared at the same time that he went out.

Becky somehow manages to return later, and says she was kidnapped from her room and it is timed by her last phone message at the same time that NM/SH arrived. There has been no break in.

Is it going to be such a mystery who did it? No suitcase or DNA hair etc in the car boot?

Is SH going to accept that Becky was kidnapped from right under her nose and provide NM with an alibi?

She would have to know he'd done it, he wouldn't be able to hide it from her.

So why wouldn't he tell her he is planning it beforehand, so she can lie for him and to avoid being suspected by her and everyone else after?

So maybe there was a different plan, all 3 of them would leave the house with Becky alive in the boot. NM would drop SH and child off at home and say he is going on an errand. Later on it would still pan out exactly the same, everyone would know they had been there that morning when Becky disappeared. He would need SH in on it with him to give a cover story/alibi.

I can't think of a way he could do this without SH's cooperation.

You all know I don't believe he did and they were in it together from start to finish, but I'm just trying to play devils advocate with it.

If the idea really was just to scare Becky and "teach her a lesson" with no intention to harm her, then he/they may not have been concerned about being identified as kidnapper(s) after the event. He would probably not think that he had done anything wrong.

 

[jessie]

Thanks to you Alyce, Tortoise and Clio for providing that info on SH's arrest timing.

I think it her reaction to her arrest is worth bearing in mind when watching those two March police interviews of her being questioned.

IMO she knew, how much and how involved she was I haven't yet been able to decide but I'm hoping her cross examination will make things clearer.

Bless those jury members, so glad I'm not one of them.

 

[sar2them1984]

Deleted

 

[musicaljoke]

Just thinking things through that we have heard from the beginning of trial...imo pros have not as yet proven that SH was involved in the events that happened at BW's house. But frm shortly after they left up until they were arrested, there is no way SH did not know that BW was murdered and her body was in their bathroom.
I feel as though I am a logical thinking person and what NM and SH ask us to believe defies logic.
* After typing all that what NM asks us to believe happened in BW's attempted kidnap defies logic too....so idk

I found it helpful to review the forensic evidence given on October 19. It's written up nicely if you scroll down a bit here: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...2B8ADC!1477&authkey=!ADtXLjozus6A4Iw&app=Word

 

[musicaljoke]

Do we know if the batteries that were purchased by the suspects when on their way to Becky's house, were for the two stun guns?

Would stun guns leave the scorch marks that were found on the white duvet?

 

[Tortoise]

If the idea really was just to scare Becky and "teach her a lesson" with no intention to harm her, then he/they may not have been concerned about being identified as kidnapper(s) after the event. He would probably not think that he had done anything wrong.

I don't think Becky, her Mum and Dad, or the law would see it quite like that. Taking a child? Assaulting her to get her in handcuffs and taping up her mouth, using a stun gun? I think he would be facing serious charges without a strong alibi witness.

 

[jessie]

I found it helpful to review the forensic evidence given on October 19. It's writen up nicely if you scroll down a bit here: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...2B8ADC!1477&authkey=!ADtXLjozus6A4Iw&app=Word

The forensic evidence sounds as if Becky was dragged down the stairs (the stomping) while still alive, but probably deeply unconscious. It is what I have often considered.
How efficient was NM at finding her pulse? Becky could have had a very slow pulse after the carotid artery pressure, tape over her mouth (and nose) plus the possible short burst of the stun gun.
The smothering possibly happening in the boot - but by whom I don't know. OMO


eta I don't believe he ever got her into the suitcase. alive or deceased.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

NM/SH's neighbour, SW, probably did hear noises but not necessarily on those dates. SH and NM were at Crown Hill on 19th Feb between 11am and 2pm so that part cannot be correct.

Question is, is SW more sure that the noises were on consecutive days or is she more sure she can tie a particular noise to a definite date?

The argument could have been on the 18th – a possible trigger for the assault on Becky the next day or it could have been on the 19th as a result of the aftermath of Becky’s death.

The moving of heavy objects could have been on the 19th when NM was alone in CML or it could have been on the 20th when both NM and SH were at CML.

I don’t think the prosecution is assuming SW is a day out - it is in his interest to suggest she is.


http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Becky-...tory-27947152-detail/story.html#ixzz3q4KEKIlX

Hang on though, the 19th is the day she disappeared and they were at Beckys house all day. It's the 20th that he went off for a few hours. I'm confused.

 

[Cherwell]

I don't think Becky, her Mum and Dad, or the law would see it quite like that. Taking a child? Assaulting her to get her in handcuffs and taping up her mouth, using a stun gun? I think he would be facing serious charges without a strong alibi witness.

That's not the point though. What we have to consider is how NM might see it - what was going on in his mind. This is the story he has presented, and presumably he doesn't expect people to find it unreasonable.

 

[Clio]

Hang on though, the 19th is the day she disappeared and they were at Beckys house all day. It's the 20th that he went off for a few hours. I'm confused.

Neighbour of NM/SH said she heard banging/furniture moving in CML on the 19th between 11am and 2pm. NM/SH were at Crown Hill at that time so neighbour must be wrong about the date/time.

4th Line down should read as below, edited original post.

The moving of heavy objects could have been on the 20th when NM was alone in CML or it could have been on the 21st when both NM and SH were at CML.

 

[Tortoise]

That's not the point though. What we have to consider is how NM might see it - what was going on in his mind. This is the story he has presented, and presumably he doesn't expect people to find it unreasonable.

so you don't think he might have considered he would need SH on board as an alibi witness from the get go, I don't mean telling her after. I'd be very surprised if he thought he wouldn't have to prove it wasn't him, with Anjie knowing in advance they were going over.

 

[Tortoise]

Neighbour of NM/SH said she heard banging/furniture moving in CML on the 19th between 11am and 2pm. NM/SH were at Crown Hill at that time so neighbour must be wrong about the date/time.

I think 'Lacey' means that the dates in your original post were wrong.

 

[sar2them1984]

Deleted

 

[CoverMeCagney]

But she said she was sure of the date/time as she'd checked messages on her phone. So still confused.

If anyone can clarify with a link that would be fab!

 

[Clio]

I think 'Lacey' means that the dates in your original post were wrong.

I know thx - fixed now. Been a long day!!!

 

[Tortoise]

But she said she was sure of the date/time as she'd checked messages on her phone. So still confused.

If anyone can clarify with a link that would be fab!

Clio's linked it in her original message on the last page.

She has to have been wrong about the furniture because they weren't at home that day at midday. Unless they popped home with Becky's body and then went back to BW's house before Anjie got back. that's a possibility.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

It's the wrong scheme - they are the plans for round the corner - can't find plans for cotton mill lane which is strange

Bugger / LOL!! I've gone back and deleted my links re that scheme. Can you delete any quotes you did, don't want to confuse people. We need to find the proper plans though!!

 

[Clio]

Clio's linked it in her original message on the last page.

She has to have been wrong about the furniture because they weren't at home that day at midday. Unless they popped home with Becky's body and then went back to BW's house before Anjie got back. that's a possibility.

Google maps says 8 minutes by car from CH to CML. Was there time?

 

[musicaljoke]

Clio's linked it in her original message on the last page.

She has to have been wrong about the furniture because they weren't at home that day at midday. Unless they popped home with Becky's body and then went back to BW's house before Anjie got back. that's a possibility.

The story changes if we believe the witness who said the noises were heard on the 19th. Who is the more credible witness?