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

[TupeloMz]

If the dismemberment took place in the loft what reason would Nathan have for keeping Shauna out of the bathroom? And what would be gained by lying about where she was dismembered?

ETA- I am desperate to hear the other 4 give evidence as I think that will clear up some things, IF we can rely on them telling the truth that is ...

I am guessing they lied about where the dismemberment (if they lied) took place to insure SH's DNA or fingerprints could not be found linking her to this aweful crime and she could pretend to be totally uninvolved. Moo.

 

[Tortoise]

They just shown that DNA was a big worry they had. NM was very careful about it and they were very confident nothing would be found.

Do you have any idea why he left so easily that blood print in the door frames in Becky's house? It appears they had time to do a better clean before AG arrived from hospital. Why so much care in their house and so less in Becky's? Perhaps they used all the time shocked with wht happened and trying to calm and begin to rehearse the story they would have to tell from the moment AG would arrive on?

perhaps they didn't have much time if they drove Becky's body home and then came back.

I think its strange that the fingerprints and handprint they found were on door frames. I don't often touch door frames myself, doors yes, and light switches, but not the frame. It would suggest he was deliberately holding on to leave a full handprint and I think it sounds like he was leaning on a frame, perhaps resting because he was in pain.

 

[mrazda71]

I agree. Also, when she wanted out of the relationship, it was said that he hurt himself, rather than her. He stabbed himself with a fork, didn't he. So, when she says she was scared to end the relationship or get away, is there any real evidence that he would be violent to her? Or was it more a case of him doing what she wanted, in order for the relationship to continue - bearing in mind they were living in her house, and he wasn't supposed to be living there. So, he couldn't exactly refuse to move out if she really wanted rid of him.

In a relationship like has been described - it really isn't that easy. In black and white yeah just tell him 'you're not even legally living here' but there are just so many complexities! You hate them, you love them, they smother (metaphorically) you, you need them, you can't stand to be around them, you miss them ... and add pregnancy hormones on top AND the fact they already have a child together which is an enormous emotional tie. Even if you yourself feel that you've been in an controlling or abusive relationship - you haven't lived in mine, I not in yours and us not in hers ...

 

[Tortoise]

This is a really good point. Why stay? It makes no sense if they both knew. This is something that the defence will surely raise which would then give the prosecution the change to cross examine her on it. I'd like to hear their take on it and whether they can think of a very good reason why they would stay.

If they did take the body home at midday and come back it would kind of make more sense to me - that they weren't worried about her being just outside in the boot with people coming in the house passing right next to her. What if a passing dog had picked up a scent? I wonder if the car was still reversed up on the drive when Anjie came back.

yes and also that way they could monitor what the family decided to do about it. They are both controlling types IMO. Being absent would drive them crazy with not knowing if Becky had been reported missing yet.

just a couple of justifications I already posted yesterday about why they might have decided to stay all day

 

[sar2them1984]

I thought loft too however, there would be DNA and the Prosecution has based their theory on what happened saying she was dismembered in the bathtub. I would hope that forensically that house was torn apart looking for DNA evidence. I can't believe they didn't.

So where does that leave us because I can't wrap my head around the fact that there is no forensic evidence to suggest that it happened in the bathroom.

Bizarre.

I've not caught up yet so forgive me if this has been mentioned - if the loft was the site then that throws up logistic problems regarding power etc

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

I've not caught up yet so forgive me if this has been mentioned - if the loft was the site then that throws up logistic problems regarding power etc

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

do any of the models have battery power ? otherwise, extension cable

 

[Alyce]

perhaps they didn't have much time if they drove Becky's body home and then came back.

I think its strange that the fingerprints and handprint they found were on door frames. I don't often touch door frames myself, doors yes, and light switches, but not the frame. It would suggest he was deliberately holding on to leave a full handprint and I think it sounds like he was leaning on a frame, perhaps resting because he was in pain.

that would make sense, holding on, getting his balance back, in some pain.
No doubt they did clean up and thought all was well. They had hours afterwards, to go upstairs during the day, so am sure they had a good check round - but the fingerprint was not visible - to them.

 

[Tortoise]

I agree SOME people. I've seen both. I don't think she is one of the latter in the sense you mean it , but hey this is WS, the diversity of opinions is what makes it valuable.

I agree we are all going to interpret these police interviews differently. When you watch that VT, don't you see all the "signs" of a desire to assist the PC? An almost "we are on the same side" theme, "it's appalling, he is a terrible man, who knew?" The body language leaks an awful lot, in my interpretation. The PC isn't naive, the PC will have been helping to facilitate this.

I would like to agree with you on this bit, but thought the PCs interviewing SH were quite wishy washy and feeble. they didn't seem to have a clear plan before they started. however, it has given us a useful insight into SH's early reactions.

 

[cottonweaver]

I would like to agree with you on this bit, but thought the PCs interviewing SH were quite wishy washy and feeble. they didn't seem to have a clear plan before they started. however, it has given us a useful insight into SH's early reactions.

When I watched the first VT interview when it was the male PC* interviewing SH as a volunt. witness I thought he could hardly string his question together - the Q. about "did NM have any reluctance about speaking to us the cops?". It was so tentatively put, almost rambling and amateurish. But I don't know if there was an intentional softly softly going on there by the PC.


( I am using the term PC loosely , for speed, naturally I know none of them are constables but I don't know their exact ranks.
I appreciate the diff between interviewing under voluntary and post arrest. )

 

[cottonweaver]

We'll never know HOW controlling NM was of SH, and the complexities of the power dynamics between them, not just of him upon her but I found this notable in terms of her Defence lawyers' strategy, which we have spoken about less on here ( naturally we aren't privy to thos ediscussions and can only guess. )

Shaunas mum said Nathan was "controlling" - Defence points out this did not appear in her original witness statement
Defence asks her why she had not included that in the witnesses statement,"Are you trying to make things worse for him and a little bit better for Shauna?" Shaunas mum says:"No"
UK & Eire database for all crimes against children

That was said day SH's mum gave her evidence.

I'd be interested to compare the dates of all the VTs and the dates of her meetings with her lawyer to compare them.

I have no doubt that NM was controlling of SH eg.
Becky's friend said:

"Becky said that Nathan wouldn't let Shauna cut her hair short and said that like he would buy her clothes and stuff, like to wear, like it was kind of seemed really controlling, but I don't think she realised it."*

Shauna's friend described the cigarette buying and petrol charges etc too, so I have no doubt that NM was controlling of SH,

BUT I wouldn't know the extent, how his fear of her leaving him exerted extra subtleties ( let's guess he has abandonment issues from his childhood too too )

....Plus I'd be hard pressed to determine how that abuse should mitigate her sentence etc. IF next week, under cross-x, she is exposed as a liar who knew or assisted in the murder & dismemberment of a body etc

 

[Clio]

I've not caught up yet so forgive me if this has been mentioned - if the loft was the site then that throws up logistic problems regarding power etc

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

do any of the models have battery power ? otherwise, extension cable

If not battery powered, plugging the saw in presents the same power source problem whether it was used in the loft or the bathroom. Perhaps even more of a problem in the bathroom which definitely won't have had a power socket. I have lived in some houses which have electrical sockets in the loft. If no electrical socket in the loft he might have needed an extension cable to provide lighting anyway.

I agree that NM using the saw on a body in the actual bath, with one hand and his eyes closed and leaving no scratches or marks on the bath is just not credible. So if it was done in the bath, I think he had help. If it wasn't done in the bath, maybe he could have managed by himself.

 

[Gigi-G]

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 , 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

I'm wondering if the separate charges for NM. Regarding Voyeurism etc. Are in relation to SH? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
Being that he was with her and in not so many words grooming her at this tender age.
And /or capturing provocative images. Mm just a thought IMOO

 

[cottonweaver]

do any of the models have battery power ? otherwise, extension cable

Never come across a battery powered CSaw, just base don power and wattage required.

I thought I had come across a police photo of the loft but I may be mistaken.

So as well as the extension reel plugged in on the lower floor , the operator would need some effective (directional) lighting to get the precise results that the pathologist has described.

(Anyway IMO, it's all B.S - no way can operate that CSaw single handed ( as he said) on this, in way pathologist describes, but yes get's us no further forward in guessing where else it could be have been carried out. )

ETA - Apols, cross-posted with Clio saying similar, only just seen

 

[Cherwell]

If not battery powered, plugging the saw in presents the same power source problem whether it was used in the loft or the bathroom. Perhaps even more of a problem in the bathroom which definitely won't have had a power socket. I have lived in some houses which have electrical sockets in the loft. If no electrical socket in the loft he might have needed an extension cable to provide lighting anyway.

I agree that NM using the saw on a body in the actual bath, with one hand and his eyes closed and leaving no scratches or marks on the bath is just not credible. So if it was done in the bath, I think he had help. If it wasn't done in the bath, maybe he could have managed by himself.

If he had help, then for me there's not much room for doubt that the bath was the place. The shower curtains could have been draped over the top of the bath as cover, to contain anything which might have flown up. Easy to clean the bath thoroughly (which had clearly been done), and there wouldn't have been much blood anyway. If he was lying about using the bath, I don't think it would have been so thoroughly cleaned.

 

[Gigi-G]

If the dismemberment took place in the loft what reason would Nathan have for keeping Shauna out of the bathroom? And what would be gained by lying about where she was dismembered?

ETA- I am desperate to hear the other 4 give evidence as I think that will clear up some things, IF we can rely on them telling the truth that is ...

Initially NM decided to go about BW's 'disposal' by using Drain cleaners. Hoping that it would disolve the body by acid process. But you would need commercial strength acid for that. So he found to his demise. That method wasn't going to work as he'd wished. So therefore he had to 'thoroughly clean' the bath to rid the area of contamination. I think the loft was just the next best thing. Imo

 

[LBB]

I'm not very comfortable with all the negative speak of DW. He's not on trial.

I think words in the trial can easily be taken out of context. Becky being 'thrown out' may have been a 'Becky I'm at my wits end. I think you should go and stay with your mum for a bit'. It may have been what was thought was best for her as much as the rest of the family. Perhaps when she had anorexia it may have been felt best that she goes elsewhere to somewhere better equipped to deal with her illness. It doesn't necesarily have to have been a punishment as such. We don't know the context of the so called 'throwing out'. Also wasn't SH who said it? So how true is it? If we accept that SH spoke negatively of BW then we need to accept that this could be her putting her spin on things. Indeed, even if she liked the girl, it is still her interpretation of the situation.

DW saying that BW was disrespectful, I've said it before I think but in a missing person's investigation surely it is important to be honest because the whole aim is to find that person. If he had said that everything had been brilliant at home, it may have hindered the investigation, if she had simply run away because of an argument. I think that we can all accept that those we love don't always act in a perfect manner. We don't love them any less for it but we can accept their short comings.

Going way back to an earlier thread and a comment I had forgotten about (I couldn't commebt at the time as I was having login issues) someone commented that the family set up was strange. I seem to remember a comment about uncles the same age as nephews or something. It struck me as an incredibly judgmental comment.

Firstly, relationships do break down nowadays and thank goodness we are, at least in the UK, in a time where if a marriage is failing, people can end it. I don't think they should be judged for that. It can happen for any number of reasons and I believe it can be far more damaging for children if their parents stay together when it clearly isn't working.


As for the 'nephews/uncles' comment. in many Scots/Irish Catholic families, until recently it was not uncommon for people to have seven, eight nine or even 10 children. My mum is one of nine from such a family, all born to the same parents when they were between the age of about 20 to early/mid 40s. By the time my mum was born, her eldest brother was married and had a child. Nothing dysfunctional about that at all. It's just the way things pan out. I also know families where parents had children in their early to mid 20s, raised them and then had another pregnancy in late 30s/early 40s. This can lead to nephews/nieces and aunts/uncles being similar in age. Again, nothing dysfunctional in MoO.

 

[pappa rob]

If not battery powered, plugging the saw in presents the same power source problem whether it was used in the loft or the bathroom. Perhaps even more of a problem in the bathroom which definitely won't have had a power socket. I have lived in some houses which have electrical sockets in the loft. If no electrical socket in the loft he might have needed an extension cable to provide lighting anyway.

I agree that NM using the saw on a body in the actual bath, with one hand and his eyes closed and leaving no scratches or marks on the bath is just not credible. So if it was done in the bath, I think he had help. If it wasn't done in the bath, maybe he could have managed by himself.

If you have a regular light socket, not a fluorescent one you can get an adapter that will allow you to use that as a place to plug in a cord into. I know you can in the "states" anyways. I'm going to assume that there's a light in the loft, that would be one explanation.

 

[pappa rob]

Never come across a battery powered CSaw, just base don power and wattage required.

I thought I had come across a police photo of the loft but I may be mistaken.

So as well as the extension reel plugged in on the lower floor , the operator would need some effective (directional) lighting to get the precise results that the pathologist has described.

(Anyway IMO, it's all B.S - no way can operate that CSaw single handed ( as he said) on this, in way pathologist describes, but yes get's us no further forward in guessing where else it could be have been carried out. )

ETA - Apols, cross-posted with Clio saying similar, only just seen

do any of the models have battery power ? otherwise, extension cable

Yes they have lots of battery powered saws you can buy nowadays, I have two. All the Circular saws I've ever seen are designed to be used one handed, I've never attempted using two hands. Was any DNA found on the saw? If it was used it would be all over the inside of the inside of the saw.

 

[Tortoise]

Extracts from SH first voluntary interview Thursday 26th Feb. Bolded parts for analysis.

SH : "got in, um, heard music upstairs, assumed Becky had been in then" <snip>

SH : "We came back up, I went into the kitchen to get a drink I think it was and wash my hands, then I heard the front door slam, um carried on washing my hands, went into the living room, then I think it wasn't until a lot later on that Anjie asked me if Becky had gone out and I said 'yeah, I heard the door go, she must have gone out earlier'." <cut in video>

SH : "washing my hands I think, I heard the door slam.."

Policeman : "Ah"

SH : "..front door, um, again I didn't look at the time or think anything of it so I didn't really kind of like 'ooh, what was that?' it was just the door so Becky would've gone out."

Policeman : "Yeah, OK sorry I think I've accidentally got this in the wrong order here.."

SH : "OK" (laughing)

Policeman : "..you'll have to clarify this, so right let me just go back slightly then if I could. The door slamming then, um, you've already said you er you've got to get from the kitchen to the living room, so how far away from that front door would you have been?"

SH : "Um, about, you've got the front door, the living room and about halfway up the hallway is the kitchen, so I would have been at the sink, so, dunno distance? (laughing), a reasonable amount I'd say."

Policeman : "Yeah, OK, and immediately before this sound of the door slamming, what could you hear then?"

SH : Um I think it was just CBBs again to be honest, I was kind of more you know trying to make sure the vitamins back and getting my drink, um, NO, I heard stomping down the stairs, cos that's what made me think that Becky had left in a mood (looking) cos I said to Anjie cos I said door slammed I wasn't sure if that was the wind, I took it because there was like quite STOMP, STOMP, STOMP down the stairs I assumed, you know, she was in a bit of one of her tantrums." (laughing)

Policeman "Yeah."

1. She says we then immediately says I. Is this because that part about going into the kitchen is part of their (badly) planned story?

2. This time she mentions the door slam she "didn't think anything of it" other than that Becky had gone out.

3. This time she mentions the door slam she says she did think something else of it...that it might have been the wind. And, going onto number 4, the same sentence..

4. The order of her thoughts about the door slamming has to be a construction and not a true memory, it does not make sense that her first sense of what was happening was that it was Becky stomping down and leaving in a tantrum and that she also had wondered if it was the wind.


IMO this is proof that she is lying, and that she lied to Anjie before they left the house that day.

 

[Cherwell]

I'm not very comfortable with all the negative speak of DW. He's not on trial.

I think words in the trial can easily be taken out of context. Becky being 'thrown out' may have been a 'Becky I'm at my wits end. I think you should go and stay with your mum for a bit'. It may have been what was thought was best for her as much as the rest of the family. Perhaps when she had anorexia it may have been felt best that she goes elsewhere to somewhere better equipped to deal with her illness. It doesn't necesarily have to have been a punishment as such. We don't know the context of the so called 'throwing out'. Also wasn't SH who said it? So how true is it? If we accept that SH spoke negatively of BW then we need to accept that this could be her putting her spin on things. Indeed, even if she liked the girl, it is still her interpretation of the situation.

DW saying that BW was disrespectful, I've said it before I think but in a missing person's investigation surely it is important to be honest because the whole aim is to find that person. If he had said that everything had been brilliant at home, it may have hindered the investigation, if she had simply run away because of an argument. I think that we can all accept that those we love don't always act in a perfect manner. We don't love them any less for it but we can accept their short comings.

I couldn't agree more. I would add that the phrase "thrown out" of home is most likely an exaggeration, I've heard people use the phrase for a bit of drama when referring to the kind of situation you describe. They haven't meant it literally.

Going way back to an earlier thread and a comment I had forgotten about (I couldn't commebt at the time as I was having login issues) someone commented that the family set up was strange. I seem to remember a comment about uncles the same age as nephews or something. It struck me as an incredibly judgmental comment.

Firstly, relationships do break down nowadays and thank goodness we are, at least in the UK, in a time where if a marriage is failing, people can end it. I don't think they should be judged for that. It can happen for any number of reasons and I believe it can be far more damaging for children if their parents stay together when it clearly isn't working.

As for the 'nephews/uncles' comment. in many Scots/Irish Catholic families, until recently it was not uncommon for people to have seven, eight nine or even 10 children. My mum is one of nine from such a family, all born to the same parents when they were between the age of about 20 to early/mid 40s. By the time my mum was born, her eldest brother was married and had a child. Nothing dysfunctional about that at all. It's just the way things pan out. I also know families where parents had children in their early to mid 20s, raised them and then had another pregnancy in late 30s/early 40s. This can lead to nephews/nieces and aunts/uncles being similar in age. Again, nothing dysfunctional in MoO.

I don't think anyone's been judgemental about this in regard to Becky's family. My understanding is that DG's father married a second time to a younger lady, and so DG has siblings who are much younger than he is, and only a little older than his own children.