GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #12

[edgedweller]

So far as I'm aware, we have only heard the 'man and woman arguing' story from a friend of James Ireland as yet, not from James himself - until we hear it from James himself or Karl testifies that it was Shauna and Nathan arguing then I'm not convinced - I think it could've been Jaydene and a man arguing at her house. If I recall correctly, the friend of Jamie said something along the lines of arguing with an "attractive woman" - would a guy say that about a pregnant woman he didn't know?

Have you seen JP? I would say that SH is more attractive, if I'm being brutally honest! Even when pregnant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mrazda71]

From same article



Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Becky-...tory-28026467-detail/story.html#ixzz3qN8giZ2y

However I agree, it's very unclear. Do we know if NM smokes?

Hmmm I've never heard it mentioned and I think he'd be less bothered about Shauna Smoking if he smoked himself?

 

[sar2them1984]

Because... tv lately is rubbish and we're avoiding tacking that ironing pile and sorting out 'the drawer of random things' ?

Ahhh the junk drawer - that reminds me, mine needs cleaning

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[TupeloMz]

Oh my god, are you actually SPYING on me?!

:laughing::laughing:

 

[mrazda71]

Ahhh the junk drawer - that reminds me, mine needs cleaning

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Glad I'm not the only one who has one! Mine is sometimes so bad that something wedges it so you can only get it open 2 inches and you have to try and jiggle the draw and swipe a spatula around like a ninja in the dark til you can free it 😂

 

[Tortoise]

I'm trying to think of all the slip ups - I don't think there were many

1. blood spots and fingerprint / handprint on door frames at Crown Hill
2. boot liner with hair left inside oven at Cotton Mill Lane


Is that it? Without those two tiny mistakes this pair would have sailed off into the sunset.

A violent struggle and death in victims own home leaving blood spots that weren't noticed by anyone for a week, and a dismemberment without trace.


I was reading today of the very similar Canadian case of Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka

- involving rape and murder of teenage girls and dismemberment. the similarity that most struck me was that their first victim was her younger sister.

I am relieved NM and SH (if convicted) were caught on this slightest piece of evidence. It seems they were meticulous. Who knows whether they would have carried on, especially if this was as I think it is, related to NM's increasing sexual frustration, urges, and rape fantasies. I don't believe him when he says he doesn't know why that rape video was on his phone or computer.

 

[Hexenb]

Glad I'm not the only one who has one! Mine is sometimes so bad that something wedges it so you can only get it open 2 inches and you have to try and jiggle the draw and swipe a spatula around like a ninja in the dark til you can free it ��

Oh my I have about 6 of them drawers and I know what you mean about opening them

 

[epiphany]

<snip>

Bristol Crown Court heard Ireland told housemate Simon Knight he had been asked to move "soft" packages after a work colleague got a call.

He said they were taken from a house where a man and woman were arguing, Mr Knight said.

The "stuff" needed to be moved because the man involved was "being raided" and he would be paid £5,000, Mr Knight told the jury.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/becky-watts-murder-trial-man-6674859


Ireland, he said, would "do anything for money" so agreed to help his friend. The pair took a van from their work, at British Areospace in Avonmouth, and drove to Barton Hill, Mr Knight said.

He said to me he went to pick up the stuff from Barton Hill. He told me when he got there he saw a male and a female.

Mr Knight then recounted to the court how then started loading bags into the van. He said he was putting some bags into the van, then he drove off. He said he took them to a house, he said he unloaded the bags and drove it back to the house.

He said there was one person in the van with him, he didn't say who, just that it was the male, the person's whose house he had gone to, that was my understanding. When the job was done, he said 'the male' invited inside the address in Barton Hill, where they had a cigarette together, before Ireland went back to work.

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

 

[Alyce]

From same article



Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Becky-...tory-28026467-detail/story.html#ixzz3qN8giZ2y

However I agree, it's very unclear. Do we know if NM smokes?

ETA Wasn't there something about DD having been told he had to move out of KD/JP's house?

Yes re DD having to move out .. There was some earlier speculation ( on here ) that the argument could have been JP and DD.

Edited to add, just seen Epiphany's post. Sounds like it was CML then which means SH being the woman

 

[Clio]

It's not clear at all from the testimony of JI's friends. However, the prosecution seems to have suggested today that it was SH and she seems to be denying it according to the tweet below. Would she be so adamant if JI could ID her.

ITV Becky Trial &#8207;@ITVBeckyTrial · 7h7 hours ago
Court heard that James Ireland saw SH in the house, shouting at NM, telling him to "get out". SH denies this is the case #beckywatts

 

[Tortoise]

Another contradiction - today SH said it was raining. Where/when was it that she denied it had been raining that morning?

 

[ChuckieD]

I totally agree, but would any one of us lie when the truth would work better? I wouldn't.
I would have told my lawyer to get me on that stand and ask me questions where I can clarify exactly what happened and how I could stand to lose my children and my freedom over something I had no part of and be as up front and honest as I could. Jmo.

I'm not in her position. As far as she's concerned, it seems, she has been upfront and honest as she can be. Past week or so I've just been seeing court updates and popped on here for a mere few minutes. Has she outright lied that can be positively proven?

As for third party testimonies about them hearing JM/SH argue and SH telling JM to'get out'. Pretty sure they all admitted they'd been drinking and couldn't be 100% on the conversation and JI has some learning difficulties or is on the autism spectrum which some people seem to be fitting to their made up mind - could well be wrong as really not had a huge amount of time to invest recently.

 

[epiphany]

And SH had the audacity to suggest in one of her early police interviews (no link handy) that when she & NM got a lift home from her Mom's home that she was a little bit afraid, nervous, it was dark---about the driver & his friend. She subtly suggests it (her initial nervousness about the other 2 men in the car) perhaps testing how it'll go over. She pondered whether it was KD, perhaps...mentioning one of the men in the car was biracial.

Then we learn she had met not only KD, but his GF, JP at a BD party she & Nathan had been invited to.

She's the Energizer Bunny of pathological liars...she hasn't run out of juice yet

 

[TupeloMz]

I'm not in her position. As far as she's concerned, it seems, she has been upfront and honest as she can be. Past week or so I've just been seeing court updates and popped on here for a mere few minutes. Has she outright lied that can be positively proven?

As for third party testimonies about them hearing JM/SH argue and SH telling JM to'get out'. Pretty sure they all admitted they'd been drinking and couldn't be 100% on the conversation and JI has some learning difficulties or is on the autism spectrum which some people seem to be fitting to their made up mind - could well be wrong as really not had a huge amount of time to invest recently.

Idk.
The only thing imo that has been positively proven is that NM attacked Becky on the landing of her home (DNA and fingerprint) and at some point transported her in his car ( hair) then at a later date moved her body parts from his and SH's home to a shed with help and transportation provided by friends (video).

 

[Scorpio5]

If only NM could take a look at his mum and see the pain he has caused, stand up and say "Obviously, we are lying, obviously SH knew all about the kidnap plan, obviously helped me murder Becky/knew I/had murdered Becky, obviously helped me dismember her/knew what I was doing, obviously helped with the clean up/knew I was cleaning up. Obviously we agreed she would obviously lie about everything. "

 

[CoverMeCagney]

If only NM could take a look at his mum and see the pain he has caused, stand up and say "Obviously, we are lying, obviously SH knew all about the kidnap plan, obviously helped me murder Becky/knew I/had murdered Becky, obviously helped me dismember her/knew what I was doing, obviously helped with the clean up/knew I was cleaning up. Obviously we agreed she would obviously lie about everything. "

Is that you, Nathan?

 

[mrazda71]

If only NM could take a look at his mum and see the pain he has caused, stand up and say "Obviously, we are lying, obviously SH knew all about the kidnap plan, obviously helped me murder Becky/knew I/had murdered Becky, obviously helped me dismember her/knew what I was doing, obviously helped with the clean up/knew I was cleaning up. Obviously we agreed she would obviously lie about everything. "

Aha but he'd be lying then cause it seems that he only says 'obviously' when it's obviously a lie [emoji23] ... now I'm really confused!

 

[Tortoise]

I'm now pondering NM's refusal to have SH's name spoken and to have her removed from his screen in court.

I'm thinking he is the controller in the relationship. He has massive control issues - demonstrated by his hoarding taking over the house so they have to live, eat and sleep in one narrow walkway and bed.

He has worked for 6-7 years? on turning SH into his loyal puppet. He has got her to participate in threesomes and has progressed to talking of kidnap and buying stun guns.

His capture is some come down for him. To suddenly lose his power and hold over SH. He has nothing he can control at that precise time. That is enough to send him into a meltdown, let alone having to deal with the other pressing problem of finding a way of convincing everyone that this was all accidental.

I think he can't bear to even be reminded of SH's existence, now that he has lost her and can't control what she is saying and doing. It's too much like when he had no control over his early life. He is facing his worst nightmare. Being helpless and having lost what he thought would make him complete, even though it wasn't working and he was having to add in more danger and risk to achieve that goal.

 

[cottonweaver]

RSBM purely to make shorter.

And thanks to Cagney for original Q to us all.

Would any of these questions help? ( TBH , the answers are evidentially useless and can only raise further doubt in jury's mind which in itself is not a basis for conviction....)

1. IDK if SH has a current or recent SWorker*, am presuming she may,thus why did she not access SServices/discuss with SW in respect of feeling trapped in a terrifying reln. And was was a threat to her safety and consequently a risk to her daughter.
2. How many days she couldn't use the toilet, where the toilet bucket was emptied to her knowledge, how could NM empty the bucket down the loo if the toilet was blocked.( Ditto IDK Child's potty use -child's age then ?)
3. What they were arguing about 30 mins as per Webb and how Webb can think they were very so quiet/absent neighbours in light of her claims of a terrifying, violent man.
4. What was her reaction to NM buying her her own stun-gun and what reason did NM give SH regarding her need for it/it's purpose. Did she feel it was a safe item to have around the bedroom as torch in view of her toddler?
5. when she gave NM the ultimatum on the house hoard clearing , what was her specific threat?
6. What she explained to her mum about the sudden prolonged visits after a 2 year absence.
7. Which friend did you plan your escape from Nathan with and specific details of that.
8. What reason she explained to her mum about the sudden prolonged visits after a 2 year absence. And did she discuss her fears and need to escape from NM with mum, who clearly welcomed her back?
9. Who/when turned the music off in Becky's bedroom. As she was outside how come she heard nothing from BW's bedroom considering the struggle as per pathologist's bruise count etc
10. Why send texts to NM about seeing pretty teens, feeding his fetish, when u were pressured to have threesomes.
11. Which room hoards was NM about to clear and how did the 5 rolls of cling film assist with their clearing?
12. Detail about the sawing noises and her perception of what specifically he was doing with a circular saw in trying to unblock a toilet? ( Someone mentioned 2 loos at CML though, not sure if that is correct.)
13.Simple things to get her flustered such as the why no remark to nathan about becky stomping out?

Well I see that he didn't pose any of the questions above as I catch up with afternoon's cross from where I had to leave it this morning. So that must mean he has some better ones tomorrow and nails the inconsistencies.

There has to be jolly good reason he is asking closed questions so hoping that will develop tomorrow with traps he has laid, being optimistic. ( Lawyers coach against embellishment, stick to yes /no etc and Moseley QC will know that, he's a highly experienced QC himself so it must be purposeful.) I can't believe QC M just wants to go down the implausibility line for the jury although I do like his rhythmic mantra of 'is it a coincidence that x,y,z.....so are you just unlucky that ... do you think it's simply unfortunate that......."

I was calling her "clever Shauna" previously. Add to that cool, calm and collected. (Ideal client for Defence QC so far.)
AKA hard as nails.

Incidentally can't we now, at a slight stretch, start to tick off some of the psychopathy checklist for Shauna too?

 

[mrazda71]

Well I see that he didn't pose any of the questions above as I catch up with afternoon's cross from where I had to leave it this morning. So that must mean he has some better ones tomorrow and nails the inconsistencies.

There has to be jolly good reason he is asking closed questions so hoping that will develop tomorrow with traps he has laid, being optimistic. ( Lawyers coach against embellishment, stick to yes /no etc and Moseley QC will know that, he's a highly experienced QC himself so it must be purposeful.) I can't believe QC M just wants to go down the implausibility line for the jury although I do like his rhythmic mantra of 'is it a coincidence that x,y,z.....so are you just unlucky that ... do you think it's simply unfortunate that......."

I was calling her "clever Shauna" previously. Add to that cool, calm and collected. (Ideal client for Defence QC so far.)
AKA hard as nails.

Incidentally can't we now, at a slight stretch, start to tick off some of the psychopathy checklist for Shauna too?

How do we know that she was "cool, calm and collected"? We can't tell from a 'tweet' what her demeanor was while being cross examined? Or has it been said that's how she was and I've missed it?

In hindsight, maybe we should've set up a rota and had a Websleuther in the gallery each day, reporting back