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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #641
Ohh I have no doubt he has. I was just merely trying to say that we at WS have posted up some valuable discrepancies. If he were to gloss over our ramblings here. ( which I very much doubt.) He may just see what sort of queries would be thrown up from the Jury's point of view.
I have no doubt on the extensive careers of any of the Barrister's. Just my pov 😊
The discussion here is interesting, if it wasn't none of us would be here. But it is limited by our access to the evidence. The point I was making was that with full access to all the evidence (and importantly to the non admissible evidence) WM and his team will have more than enough ideas and tactics up their sleeves.

It's fun to see how people's thought processes work. It's one of the main reasons I come here. Some of the ideas are so bizarre and left field that I suppose it is possible that someone could come up with a different angle that could work in court. But in the main I think we have to trust that the man in the funny outfit doesn't really need our help.

If however he wanted to get a feel for how the man/woman in the street is reacting to the evidence being presented then this forum could be very useful. As a collective we must correlate to an approximation of the jury and their views. I've certainly noticed a strong shift in opinion as to SH's involvement and guilt in the past week.
 
  • #642
With the greatest of respect, the prosecutor has access to every scrap of evidence gathered for this case (admissible and non admissible). He and his juniors will have poured over every last scrap of that evidence. He is an experienced barrister of almost 30 years standing, with over 4 years as a Silk. He is attempting to prove that SH was complicit in the murder of BW, he will be thoroughly prepared for this. I don't think he needs any more help.

We've made lots of observations here but I'm expecting him to have many more . I'm interesed to see which angle he's going to go for. Will he try to prove she was an equal participant or will he use her claims of being scared of/controlled by NM to show that she involved or aware but was scared to say.
 
  • #643
Ok, so here's my take on SH now after today and revelations of her childhood and foster care situation.

I feel badly that any child would have the type of life that SH had growing up. It must have been scary, sad, loveless and life altering.

SH is a survivor. Her formative years in foster care made her a survivor. She knows how to get by and she has proven it. She is smart and manipulative. In fact, I think she's smarter than him. She works NM. She plays on his moods to get what she wants and needs. She gains some form of control even though he may not realize it. She gets knocked around and gets back up. She is not one to be taken lightly. She doesn't close her eyes, sway back and forth, hangs her head and cries. SH isn't crumbling at all. In fact she looks pretty strong and forthright after today's performance. She looks straight on and tells you what's what. She laughs at comments or suggestions that she deems ridiculous. Her mental strength is much greater than NM's. She doesn't appear to have much of a moral code. She seems not the least bit concerned that they are playing and manipulating the system to keep their benefits intact and that NM was getting paid cash and most likely not reporting it.

I am not a psychiatrist nor do I have any training in psychology but I do have real life experience with mentally ill family members with personality disorders. SH shows no empathy. I see crocodile tears where warranted. She knows how to work a crowd. She lies easily and tries to say all the right things and my guess is that she has had to lie her entire life to get by. She may have sociopathic tendencies. She tells you what you want to hear to get what she wants.

But we also know that she CLAIMS that NM was extremely controlling of her, i.e., what she ate, smoking, hair length, ability to go out on her own etc. etc. My big question is....if he was that controlling of her, how can we believe that he did not demand help of her during the whole thing, from murder to clean up to dismemberment to getting rid of the body? She may have put herself in the corner with NM on that one.

I think the lies will come undone, the discrepancies will widen and we will see her for what she is.

IMHO SH has just as much ability to kill someone, if not more so, than NM. She has the fortitude and the brains to pull it off.

Great post!

SH is a survivor and mentally stronger than NM without a doubt. As a child, she would have gradually learned to be charming and agreeable to fit in with a family and quickly realized that negative/rebellious behaviour could mean being sent on. As a survivor, shutting down emotions especially when things get too tough to handle is a great gift. People who have difficulties with this technique will usually end up resorting to heavy drug use or alcohol to dull the emotional pain, so I take my hat off to SH for her mental strength and resilience.

------

There are two things that bother me about NM's story about his relationship with SH and his constant rebuttals to suggestions she was involved in the 'before, during or after' (his words).

Firstly, NM claims SH would have given him up to the police if she knew about the plan or subsequent hiding and disposal of the body. I don't believe this for a second. SH imo, would have immense difficulties in contacting the police for even a minor matter. SH didn't contact police after being physically assaulted on many occasions by NM. SH would have problems with authority which is extremely common for people who've been in care. I believe NM to be the opposite, and hold the police and authority in high regard even if he's a bit 'dodgy' himself. NM was confident SH wouldn't do it under any circumstances!

Secondly, NM says he brought SH to Becky's house because he always took her with him. SH was his best friend, confidante and lover. Whatever designs he had on Becky he would share with SH. There are people who have a double life, I don't think this the case with NM, he has one life and it's with SH. NM would share his dreams, fantasies, fears and disappointments while SH had the role of consoling and cheering him up.

So in saying all that :p, I believe SH knew about the plan and accepted NM's reasoning however bizarre. If it were to 'teach Becky a lesson' or take her to their attic for 'some fun', she'd be on board with that. NM putting the plan into action meant Becky had to die eventually and NM would be able to rationalize that also. SH probably didn't consider Becky had to die or didn't care. So with that being said, SH was part of the plan even if it was just approval of NM going ahead with it.

I think the argument they had was about the dismemberment of the body. I don't believe SH was agreeable to it and for once put up a fight. This is where I believe her when she says Becky didn't deserve that......... the dismemberment.

If SH is found guilty on perverting the course of justice, conspiracy to commit false imprisonment and preventing lawful burial of Becky, I think she will receive a very minimal sentence due to her history and the controlling nature of the relationship with NM since she was 15 yrs old.

SH could get off scot-free too. I say this because I believe SH knew enough to be complicit.

If SH had a larger role as in aiding NM with subduing Becky, helping with the cutting up/packaging of the body or worse, actually caused Becky to die by suffocation, well that's something she has to live with but she will probably manage by compartmentalizing, another useful trait used by survivors.

JMO
 
  • #644
I'm very puzzled about this too. :)

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the journalists just aren't reporting anything to do with the child and SH's pregnancy? It's very odd that neither NM nor SH seem to have mentioned their daughter in their accounts of the morning Becky disappeared. Pretty much unbelievable, in fact.

I'm waiting to see if the prosecutor asks SH anything about her daughter being with her when she went for a smoke. If she really "forgot" to mention it, that would be a pretty big change in her story and he'll surely pick up on it. If he doesn't, then I think it shows the journalists just aren't reporting anything to do with their daughter.

As someone mentioned with her not mentioning the call to children in care number, it could be that she avoided mentioning things she doesnt want the pros to focus on. So let's hope they do.
 
  • #645
PrimeSuspect

I was going to quote the above but decided with the length of your post and the post you had quoted it would make this post ridiculously long.

I totally agree with your observations on their relationship. They lived and loved in each others pockets. It's incredibly hard to believe that she had no idea about any of this.

The argument could have been about the disposal. SH may not have agreed but equally she could have been pointing out to NM that he had no choice. If they don't tell the truth about it (and it appears that currently they are not) we will never know for certain. I do find it hard to believe it was carried out by one person.

Her attempts to cast NM as a total control freak are weak. If she can be proven to have a history of poor impulse control when it comes to money most of NM's claimed behaviour can be easily explained.

I still believe that they did this together from start to finish. What they are presenting is a story that they concocted and practiced in case the Police found the body.

Today the most telling insight (for me) into SH's character was her explanation of why she searched YouTube for the how to hide a body video. When your boyfriend's step sister is missing you would need to be a really sick puppy to think that video would make anyone so closely linked to BW laugh.
 
  • #646
I rewatched SH's interviews earlier. Something that stood out to me in 3rd March, first interview(wearing beige top) was when asked if she could think of anything else that might help with proving she wasnt involved , the things she comes up with are the things related to the night the body was moved. She tells them how they had a lift back as NM had had a drink, says she'd never seen the friend before, explains that NM stayed in the car, first she says "talking for a bit" then changes that to not knowing when he came in. She also says NM made calls to arrange all this earlier and that the calls may be on her phone. Almost like she knows thats when he body was moved and wants them to find out, whilst also making sure they know she wasnt aware any of it was happening.
 
  • #647
I rewatched SH's interviews earlier. Something that stood out to me in 3rd March, first interview(wearing beige top) was when asked if she could think of anything else that might help with proving she wasnt involved , the things she comes up with are the things related to the night the body was moved. She tells them how they had a lift back as NM had had a drink, says she'd never seen the friend before, explains that NM stayed in the car, first she says "talking for a bit" then changes that to not knowing when he came in. She also says NM made calls to arrange all this earlier and that the calls may be on her phone. Almost like she knows thats when he body was moved and wants them to find out, whilst also making sure they know she wasnt aware any of it was happening.
Which friend is it that she claims never to have met before?
 
  • #648
Which friend is it that she claims never to have met before?

She only refers to one and she refers to a car not van so I'm assuming its KD in his car. She says Nathan rang one of his friends, she doesnt think she's seen him before, he gave them a lift home . She then says "Obviously I got out and he stayed in the car for a little bit chatting ..I dont know what time he came back in the house"
 
  • #649
If SH is found guilty on perverting the course of justice, conspiracy to commit false imprisonment and preventing lawful burial of Becky, I think she will receive a very minimal sentence due to her history and the controlling nature of the relationship with NM since she was 15 yrs old.

Interesting. I was thinking the opposite, that she might receive the maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice etc because there isnt quite enough to find her guilty of murder. I'm thinking of an american case Haleigh Cummings where they haven't been able to prove certain people's involvement in her disappearance but gave those people lengthy sentences for drug related crimes "instead".
 
  • #650
She only refers to one and she refers to a car not van so I'm assuming its KD in his car. She says Nathan rang one of his friends, she doesnt think she's seen him before, he gave them a lift home . She then says "Obviously I got out and he stayed in the car for a little bit chatting ..I dont know what time he came back in the house"
Wondering where the 'obviously' comes from in that statement?

It's only obvious if you believe her. If you believe that she had never met KD. If you believe that she wasn't present when NM called KD to pick him up (with her phone). If you believe that she just decided to get out of the car and leave them to chat with no idea why they needed privacy. If you believe that in their tiny house she did not hear him come back in.
 
  • #651
Interesting. I was thinking the opposite, that she might receive the maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice etc because there isnt quite enough to find her guilty of murder. I'm thinking of an american case Haleigh Cummings where they haven't been able to prove certain people's involvement in her disappearance but gave those people lengthy sentences for drug related crimes "instead".
I agree, if she is found guilty of anything I think her sentence will be at the upper end of the permissible scale.
 
  • #652
Wondering where the 'obviously' comes from in that statement?

It's only obvious if you believe her. If you believe that she had never met KD. If you believe that she wasn't present when NM called KD to pick him up (with her phone). If you believe that she just decided to get out of the car and leave them to chat with no idea why they needed privacy. If you believe that in their tiny house she did not hear him come back in.
Sadly in this case they seem to use "obviously" all the time so I dont think we can read as much into the word as we would normally.
 
  • #653
Sadly in this case they seem to use "obviously" all the time so I dont think we can read as much into the word as we would normally.
Thanks, I've not watched any of the interviews so didn't know that.

I think the only thing that is obvious is that we are hearing a story cooked up by two people trying to save their necks. One has drawn the short straw and decided to try and minimise their sentence with a load of guff about it being an accident. The other believing that her only chance of beating the charges is to make the jury believe the totally implausible idea that all of this happened without her seeing or hearing a thing.
 
  • #654
Thanks, I've not watched any of the interviews so didn't know that.

I think the only thing that is obvious is that we are hearing a story cooked up by two people trying to save their necks. One has drawn the short straw and decided to try and minimise their sentence with a load of guff about it being an accident. The other believing that her only chance of beating the charges is to make the jury believe the totally implausible idea that all of this happened without her seeing or hearing a thing.


Yup and playing the " I knew nothing" card alongside the "If I did I'd be too scared of him to tell anyway" card.

The vids are on youtube now if you did want to have a look. Here are the two from 3rd March (had to split them over two posts)

[video=youtube;oNCGAPsgnkQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNCGAPsgnkQ[/video] 3rd march 11.38
 
  • #655
[video=youtube;aEo8BYDnzik]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEo8BYDnzik[/video] 3rd March 19.05
 
  • #656
Thanks, I've not watched any of the interviews so didn't know that.

I think the only thing that is obvious is that we are hearing a story cooked up by two people trying to save their necks. One has drawn the short straw and decided to try and minimise their sentence with a load of guff about it being an accident. The other believing that her only chance of beating the charges is to make the jury believe the totally implausible idea that all of this happened without her seeing or hearing a thing.

Bolded by me.

It is just how I see it from the begining - totally implausible! Impossible. No way, being her (I repeated this so many times)

- not blind

-not deaf

- not devoided of the smell sense

- not mentally handicaped

No way. Obviously lol more than this I can't envision. I don't know if the idea was a 'team plan', if she restrained Becky or did even worse, if she knew in antecipation or only after it happened. Of course she new previously that something was to happen to Becky that fateful day or she wouldn't have gone with him. But I don't know the extent of her knowledge. Don't know if she helped with the disposal or not... but, as you said, totally implausible as they say it was. It would defy all the logic and all the odds. Only in a fantasy world.
 
  • #657
Yup and playing the " I knew nothing" card alongside the "If I did I'd be too scared of him to tell anyway" card.

The vids are on youtube now if you did want to have a look. Here are the two from 3rd March (had to split them over two posts)

[video=youtube;oNCGAPsgnkQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNCGAPsgnkQ[/video] 3rd march 11.38

Quoting myself, but is it me or at around the 4.30 mark when asked "Why Becky?" , does SH stifle a smile ?
 
  • #658
Thanks to PrimeSuspect, Wallace, Tealgrove for your last posts. They not only reflect the way I too think though I wasn't able to write the way you did, but also are really useful and great posts.
 
  • #659
Just watched the first video posted above. I noticed how many times her eyes moved deliberately to the left when answering questions.

189b7f3cc22cad06d0554729e2e78066.jpg
 
  • #660
Quoting myself, but is it me or at around the 4.30 mark when asked "Why Becky?" , does SH stifle a smile ?

Yes, she does a smirking smile! Like she KNOWS why.

Watching the tape again, I can't get my head around her answer to why the police should believe she wasn't involved.
'Again, I shouldn't have any DNA reason to be involved... especially my past, that I could allow something happen like that to someone else is highly unlikely.'

Why bring up DNA evidence?! So obvious she and NM discussed this and he reassured her there wouldn't be DNA evidence to convict her.
Also, the highly unlikely part means there still is a chance, be it a small one that she would allow it. :thinking:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
2,806
Total visitors
2,941

Forum statistics

Threads
632,199
Messages
18,623,467
Members
243,056
Latest member
Urfavplutonian
Back
Top