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

[ColourPurple]

Again, this part I don't buy. This woman lit things on fire (cigarettes) and inhaled toxic chemicals directly into her body on purpose. To think she was worried about the smell of bleach or drain cleaner? I don't buy it for a second!!!!

Not sure SH would worry but it does sound like something NM would say

 

[Tortoise]

I know I raised NM's "major mistake" yesterday but I still haven't worked out what it really means. He admitted, in court yesterday, that his mistake was telling AG he was in the kitchen when the door slammed. So, is SH is now guilty of perverting the course of justice by virtue of her "on the record" story of him not being in the kitchen when the door slammed?

it's one of those annoying conundrums and its now bothering me that I can't work through it LOL

 

[Alyce]

I know I raised NM's "major mistake" yesterday but I still haven't worked out what it really means. He admitted, in court yesterday, that his mistake was telling AG he was in the kitchen when the door slammed. So, is SH is now guilty of perverting the course of justice by virtue of her "on the record" story of him not being in the kitchen when the door slammed?

No I dont think they can use this against SH, because all NM will say is that he lied to AG. My take is that he is saying he was pretending that he was in the kitchen, just to give credence to the door slamming story.
But - now that he has confessed to killing Becky, he will say that what he was really doing was slamming the door so that SH would believe Becky had departed the house.

 

[cottonweaver]

Somebody mentioned before the tampon being expelled by the body is something that can happen after death.

I Have never heard that before CP. Just did a admittedly superficial search , the tampon used by MKercher was found in place and showed that R. Guede had left his DNA, there are other cases where them being in place after death has brought other forensic diagnoses.

 

[still-searching]

Trying desperately to play catch up, and looking forward to the pages ahead lol, but THIS does not surprise me. Hearing she let her toddler run around outside for 20 minutes in frigid extremely windy rainy weather so she could smoke leads me to think that she was rather selfish and didn't hold the health of her child or unborn children in high regard. The state of the house was the first sign. There weren't just things laying around in the house, there was filth... unhealthy for adults much less small children.

BBM, I'm assuming from your username that you're american and then likely from a much warmer climate than ours. I'm not saying that SH wasn't neglectful in other ways, certainly smoking while pregnant is awful, however in the UK it rains all the time. If we didn't have our kids running about in the rain they'd never get outside. I don't see it as neglectful. My cousin had her two young boys paddling in the Irish sea in their undies yesterday, 29th October. They had a great time. I guess we're more used to the cold and wet here.

 

[ColourPurple]

I know I raised NM's "major mistake" yesterday but I still haven't worked out what it really means. He admitted, in court yesterday, that his mistake was telling AG he was in the kitchen when the door slammed. So, is SH is now guilty of perverting the course of justice by virtue of her "on the record" story of him not being in the kitchen when the door slammed?

No they must have changed the story after that at some point to being in different rooms. I wonder which of them realised the implications of what he'd originally said and how quickly.


If they say they are in different rooms then it enables one of them to be the one slamming the door pretending to be Becky and the other to be the innocent person who hears the slam. If theyre both in the same room and it's later proven Becky never slammed the door then it means they both lied about hearing it slam.


So the only version where SH can be innocent is the one where they were in separate rooms. SO NM saying they were both in the kitchen would lead to a situation where they could both be proved liars ...but also if SH was innocent, him saying he was in the kitchen too when they heard the noise would look extremely odd/suspicious to SH as she'd know only she was in the kitchen and that he was lying.

 

[Cherwell]

Trying desperately to play catch up, and looking forward to the pages ahead lol, but THIS does not surprise me. Hearing she let her toddler run around outside for 20 minutes in frigid extremely windy rainy weather so she could smoke leads me to think that she was rather selfish and didn't hold the health of her child or unborn children in high regard. The state of the house was the first sign. There weren't just things laying around in the house, there was filth... unhealthy for adults much less small children.

And we don't know that this even happened. We only have their word for it.

 

[ColourPurple]

I Have never heard that before CP. Just did a admittedly superficial search , the tampon used by MKercher was found in place and showed that R. Guede had left his DNA, there are other cases where them being in place after death has brought other forensic diagnoses.

I didnt want to go into graphic detail but an example was given of pregnant corpses that have "given birth" after death

 

[cottonweaver]

I didnt want to go into graphic detail but an example was given of pregnant corpses that have "given birth" after death

Yes I came across that when I looked, but it appears to be due to very different biological reasons.
( Also the item was found separately stuffed in a jumper, not with the body etc. )
If the pathologist was not asked about this by the Prosecution ( appears so, just looked) then it's discovery must be of no consequence.

 

[ColourPurple]

it's one of those annoying conundrums and its now bothering me that I can't work through it LOL

It's one of those things I find easy to understand but hard to explain lol.

If I break it down into two parts.

Part one- Ask yourself if NM is in the kitchen with SH when the door slams can he then later say that it was him slamming the door? No

Part two -If NM was not in the kitchen when SH says she heard the door slam can he say he was in the kitchen too if he wasn't ?

If she IS involved in the cover up, yes he can say that and she can agree (till the point where she (or he) realises that will mean he can't later claim it was him slamming the door and theyll both be proved to be liars)

If she ISNT involved in the cover up as soon as he claimed to have been in the kitchen with her when she knew he wasn't she would wonder WTF he was lying for and become suspicious.

Therefore the fact that he did say he was in the kitchen at first points to her being involved in the cover up. There's no reason for him to lie about where he was if she was innocent of any involvement. It would only make him look suspicious to her as she would know he wasn't in the kitchen and would know he was lying.

 

[musicaljoke]

In those onedrive docs, can't remember which, an earlier one, she recounts that she was feeding shredded wheat cereal to the child during the CBeebies programme.

That would have been around lunch time? What time did CBeebies come on?

Shredded wheat for the child ... and after all their hard work, Chinese takeaway and pizza for them.

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...2B8ADC!1477&authkey=!ADtXLjozus6A4Iw&app=Word

 

[ColourPurple]

No I dont think they can use this against SH, because all NM will say is that he lied to AG. My take is that he is saying he was pretending that he was in the kitchen, just to give credence to the door slamming story.
But - now that he has confessed to killing Becky, he will say that what he was really doing was slamming the door so that SH would believe Becky had departed the house.

Yup and if he was pretending to be in the kitchen too then SH (if innocent) would know he was lying as she knows he wasn't in the kitchen when she was.

 

[Tortoise]

No they must have changed the story after that at some point to being in different rooms. I wonder which of them realised the implications of what he'd originally said and how quickly.


If they say they are in different rooms then it enables one of them to be the one slamming the door pretending to be Becky and the other to be the innocent person who hears the slam. If theyre both in the same room and it's later proven Becky never slammed the door then it means they both lied about hearing it slam.


So the only version where SH can be innocent is the one where they were in separate rooms. SO NM saying they were both in the kitchen would lead to a situation where they could both be proved liars ...but also if SH was innocent, him saying he was in the kitchen too when they heard the noise would look extremely odd/suspicious to SH as she'd know only she was in the kitchen and that he was lying.

And presumably SH hearing the stomping on the stairs is proof she's lying anyway. It isn't NM's version that he stomped or came down the stairs before slamming the door. He waited to see or hear SH and then slammed the door.

The other thing I find odd is that she said in her interview that she wasn't sure it was the wind but because she heard the stomping she knew it was Becky. Now then that is extremely interesting. Because it's obvious she's tried to put reverse thinking onto this. (is that a term?). You wouldn't think afterwards 'ooh was that the wind' if you had heard someone coming down and the door going. I don't know if I've explained that clearly but I know what I mean

Why would you think the wind closed the door anyway if you have no reason to think it's already open.

She will be undone yet!!

 

[Tortoise]

It's one of those things I find easy to understand but hard to explain lol.

If I break it down into two parts.

Part one- Ask yourself if NM is in the kitchen with SH when the door slams can he then later say that it was him slamming the door? No

Part two -If NM was not in the kitchen when SH says she heard the door slam can he say he was in the kitchen too if he wasn't ?

If she IS involved in the cover up, yes he can say that and she can agree (till the point where she (or he) realises that will mean he can't later claim it was him slamming the door and theyll both be proved to be liars)

If she ISNT involved in the cover up as soon as he claimed to have been in the kitchen with her when she knew he wasn't she would wonder WTF he was lying for and become suspicious.

Therefore the fact that he did say he was in the kitchen at first points to her being involved in the cover up. There's no reason for him to lie about where he was if she was innocent of any involvement. It would only make him look suspicious to her as she would know he wasn't in the kitchen and would know he was lying.

Fantastic, I had lots of 'Aaah of course' moments reading that but if you asked me to explain it again I still wouldn't be able to. I shall keep your post for reference. Thanks!

 

[ColourPurple]

And presumably SH hearing the stomping on the stairs is proof she's lying anyway. It isn't NM's version that he stomped or came down the stairs before slamming the door. He waited to see or hear SH and then slammed the door.

The other thing I find odd is that she said in her interview that she wasn't sure it was the wind but because she heard the stomping she knew it was Becky. Now then that is extremely interesting. Because it's obvious she's tried to put reverse thinking onto this. (is that a term?). You wouldn't think afterwards 'ooh was that the wind' if you had heard someone coming down and the door going. I don't know if I've explained that clearly but I know what I mean

Why would you think the wind closed the door anyway if you have no reason to think it's already open.

She will be undone yet!!

The other interesting part is that at no point did she appear to wonder if it was Nathan shutting the door. It couldve been him innocently fetching something from the car then sitting down in the lounge

 

[CoverMeCagney]

It's one of those things I find easy to understand but hard to explain lol.

If I break it down into two parts.

Part one- Ask yourself if NM is in the kitchen with SH when the door slams can he then later say that it was him slamming the door? No

Part two -If NM was not in the kitchen when SH says she heard the door slam can he say he was in the kitchen too if he wasn't ?

If she IS involved in the cover up, yes he can say that and she can agree (till the point where she (or he) realises that will mean he can't later claim it was him slamming the door and theyll both be proved to be liars)

If she ISNT involved in the cover up as soon as he claimed to have been in the kitchen with her when she knew he wasn't she would wonder WTF he was lying for and become suspicious.

Therefore the fact that he did say he was in the kitchen at first points to her being involved in the cover up. There's no reason for him to lie about where he was if she was innocent of any involvement. It would only make him look suspicious to her as she would know he wasn't in the kitchen and would know he was lying.

So basically he lied, and she knows he lied but she didn't call him out on it? And therefore she must be in on it. I'm happy with that I think, for tonight anyway....

 

[ColourPurple]

Fantastic, I had lots of 'Aaah of course' moments reading that but if you asked me to explain it again I still wouldn't be able to. I shall keep your post for reference. Thanks!

Yay lol

 

[CoverMeCagney]

That would have been around lunch time? What time did CBeebies come on?

Shredded wheat for the child ... and after all their hard work, Chinese takeaway and pizza for them.

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...2B8ADC!1477&authkey=!ADtXLjozus6A4Iw&app=Word

CBeebies is on all day, every day, but not overnight. For those not in the UK it's a kids (young, pre-school) channel with various cartoons and programs on.

 

[ColourPurple]

So basically he lied, and she knows he lied but she didn't call him out on it? And therefore she must be in on it. I'm happy with that I think, for tonight anyway....

Yup if innocent she'd have known he was lying.

If not innocent she or he would have to change the story anyway at some point, otherwise when it's proven Becky didnt slam the door, there's no way NM could then claim to have slammed it.. cos he was there with SH.

 

[Tortoise]

That would have been around lunch time? What time did CBeebies come on?

Shredded wheat for the child ... and after all their hard work, Chinese takeaway and pizza for them.

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...2B8ADC!1477&authkey=!ADtXLjozus6A4Iw&app=Word

so that's why they were viewing the TV listings that evening. they wanted to make sure they knew what was on the telly at that time lol