GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #13

[Cherwell]

My doubts are simply because he deleted the texts, there are the discrepancies between what he says and what his colleagues and manager say and also the doubts about being asleep in bed with headphones or being on the sofa. In a completly truthful statement there is no place for these doubts as all has to be right and no discrepancies can be found.

I think it's unwise to place too much importance on these discrepancies. The work colleagues had no reason to pay close attention to what DD said at this time. I wouldn't remember the exact words used in a casual conversation several weeks later. Their statements were made through the lens of knowledge that a young girl had been killed and dismembered. Now quite possibly they have good memories and have given verbatim accounts, but equally possibly they are coloured by hindsight and the desire to help bring the culprit(s) to justice.

And it's perfectly possible to be truthful, but still get details wrong because we forget things or mix them up.

 

[YidArmyRach]

Donovan Demetrius talked of 'dodgy dealings'
Employees at the store Donovan Demetrius worked at said in the week leading up to his arrest he was "unusually quiet" and spoke of "dodgy dealings" with his brother.

Demetrius was a lead sales manager at Home Bargains, in Bedminster, where he had worked for nine months.

But in the week leading up to the arrest of Matthews and Hoare for murder, on March 2, colleagues say the usually "bubbly" employee had become "quiet, reserved and withdrawn from conversation.

Colleague Danielle Wood, who worked with Demetrius during the week of February 24, said she had heard a conversation where he mentioned "dodgy dealings".
During that week he was a lot quieter, he kept himself to himself, he was not his bubbly self.

– DANIELLE WOOD
A conversation came up saying how tired he looked and he said he had been up all night waiting for his brother, to go and do some dodgy dealings.

He said he was waiting up for his brother but his brother had come back and said he had already done it and they were going to get a cut of the money but he didn't know how much.

– DANIELLE WOOD
His manager, Benjamin Fairley described Demetrius as a "real asset to the company" who had been improving and improving since starting the job.

But said the week leading up to his arrest he had turned up to work looking visibly tired.
He did look tired, as his manager I asked his whether he had been out. He replied to me 'My brother asked for my help with something, he ended up not needing me, I fell asleep on the sofa, it was a late night.

– BENJAMIN FAIRLEY
Last updated Wed 14 Oct 2015

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2015-10-12/donovan-demetrius-talked-of-dodgy-dealings/

Could this actually mean he had been waiting up for his brother - who had been up to some dodgy dealings? Say he was waiting up to catch his brother before he went out to do these dodgy dealings...... to check out what he was up to, and perhaps to warn him not to get involved with something? Or he was waiting up to make sure he got back safely, if DD was worried about what his brother was up to? Rather than DD waiting up to go and do some dodgy dealings himself?

DD said that people often came to the house late at night, so perhaps he was suspicious that his brother was getting involved in all sorts of dodgy things, which he had become aware of since living in the house.

Perhaps even DD isn't whiter than white and they do the occasional dodgy dealing ..... which may be absolutely minor in comparison to what they got up to this time?

Or maybe I'm just desperate for one person to come out of this horrible event without having been involved.

 

[Hexenb]

Sounds like we've cleared DD then folks?!

Yep he's off the hook

 

[sar2them1984]

Yep he's off the hook

I'll second that... the descrepancies don't bother me.. the statements provided were made after the fact when people were probably scrutinising every little thing DD said..but all this is with hindsight...I doubt people paid much notice to his exact wording so their testimonies cannot be taken as verbatim...and the being quiet comments are purely objective..

As others have said he is the only one who has shown ANY compassion for people other than himself..by all accounts from various social media KD was known to do "dodgy dealigs" all small time but DD was known as the sensible brother. In his own words he was trying to make something of himself...

The phone and the messages when looked at as a whole picture aren't actually that damning. Yes he deleted messages but if I've read it correctly he deleted a range of messages from before the whole situation happened and not just those to and from his brother. So hmmm... not letting the police look at his phone... well like a said before, completely understandable if there's an ingrained distrust of the police which I believe there is in the family

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[mrazda71]

I'll second that... the descrepancies don't bother me.. the statements provided were made after the fact when people were probably scrutinising every little thing DD said..but all this is with hindsight...I doubt people paid much notice to his exact wording so their testimonies cannot be taken as verbatim...and the being quiet comments are purely objective..

As others have said he is the only one who has shown ANY compassion for people other than himself..by all accounts from various social media KD was known to do "dodgy dealigs" all small time but DD was known as the sensible brother. In his own words he was trying to make something of himself...

The phone and the messages when looked at as a whole picture aren't actually that damning. Yes he deleted messages but if I've read it correctly he deleted a range of messages from before the whole situation happened and not just those to and from his brother. So hmmm... not letting the police look at his phone... well like a said before, completely understandable if there's an ingrained distrust of the police which I believe there is in the family

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Do you have a link that says that DD deleted texts from anyone other than his brother? Curious, as the only info I've seen says it was text between the 2 between certain dates.

 

[Gigi-G]

IMO. This Trial will be life changing for all involved. From the guilty to the innocent. From the Judge and the Barrister's. To the Jury and those who've filled the Court Room. It's such a sad end to a young girls life. For why?
I don't think we'll ever know. But we've all been covered by the shroud of sadness. I just hope that Becky's family can find closure once the Judge had passed his sentence. #justiceforBecky

 

[MamaJoJo]

Sounds like we've cleared DD then folks?!

For me, while I am apt to "clear" DD, I still think something is amiss. Maybe it's because it seems as if we aren't getting the full truth out of any of them. I am really glad that DD showed emotion and horror and sympathy for the situation. Finally, someone!

 

[MamaJoJo]

I've just added a link with more info

Police analysing a phone belonging to one of the defendants around the time of Becky's murder found 113 missing messages.

Forensic intelligence analyst Shaun Groves told the court that, between February 1 and March 2 call data showed a total of 261 messages had been sent from Donovan Demetrius' phone.

But, a forensic download only recovered 148 of them, of which six were drafts.

Mr Groves also told the court that between February 21 to 25 call data showed 33 text messages had been sent, but none were recovered.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update...n-100-text-messages-not-recovered-from-phone/

From ColourPurple's link re the deleted texts it is reported that from Feb 1st to March 2nd 261 texts had been deleted. That's an average of about 9 a day roughly. Also that is from February 1st, which looks as if DD regularly deleted texts for the reason he says.

Also the 33 deleted between Feb. 21st - 25th. Again that is a rough average of 9 a day I think.

I don't think anything suspicious was recovered, though I could be wrong. The deleted texts don't seem odd to me for that reason. omoo

Do you have a link that says that DD deleted texts from anyone other than his brother? Curious, as the only info I've seen says it was text between the 2 between certain dates.

Here's the article in Purple's post...

There is no information about who the deleted texts were to or from.

 

[ChuckieD]

I think we should remember they're twin brothers. Maybe DD isn't prepared to throw KD further under the bus. Maybe the texts were one brother convincing the other not to be a moron and get involved in something that is obviously more than a little dodgy if 10k is involved. I'm happy to believe that DD has absolutely no part of this beyond that. I hope he walks free and is able to get his life back on track.

 

[Cherwell]

For me, while I am apt to "clear" DD, I still think something is amiss. Maybe it's because it seems as if we aren't getting the full truth out of any of them. I am really glad that DD showed emotion and horror and sympathy for the situation. Finally, someone!

To be fair, we haven't seen KD or JP.

 

[jessie]

Just pondering. Does anyone think that the evidence we have heard from JI and DD over these past days would give the Prosecution a reason to bring SH back on the stand?

Do you think there are any points that have raised questions against her testimony??

 

[NSS]

Can I make a comment on the concern over the 'tame' nature of questioning by the pros? In the UK, the judiciary is much more respectfull than the adversarial nature of US courts. Neither is better, but they are different. The prosecutor has tied all the accused or witnesses into a 'version of events'. He has pointed out the differences in their story then and their story now. He may well recall people in light of anothers testimony. He asks questions that only allow a yes/no answer because allowing the witness a narrative answer can allow them to further explain themselves, much like we saw today.

It is the job of the defence to elicit explanations, the job of the Crown to point out discrepancies. No barrister is allowed to bully a witness, but they can paint you into a corner if the evidence and testimony allows. Once a question is asked and answered (How long was SH outside) they can't continue by asking how long it takes to smoke, wash hands, return. This was asked and answered. If SH response to how long she was outside was 'I don't know' the follow up questions could be asked in order to ascertain it. The prosecutor is speaking on behalf of 'The Crown', he has to be respectful.

The closing will point out all the discrepancies, the judge will instruct the jury, and the jury will weigh it up.

Juries are you and I, and they know if you can go all day without peeing, or if you can get yourself and a child to bed and asleep in just over 30 mins. They have also heard how much of this has occured with a small child in tow. They have MUCH more than we do.

 

[sar2them1984]

Do you have a link that says that DD deleted texts from anyone other than his brother? Curious, as the only info I've seen says it was text between the 2 between certain dates.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update...l-accused-searched-internet-for-missing-teen/

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Can I make a comment on the concern over the 'tame' nature of questioning by the pros? In the UK, the judiciary is much more respectfull than the adversarial nature of US courts. Neither is better, but they are different. The prosecutor has tied all the accused or witnesses into a 'version of events'. He has pointed out the differences in their story then and their story now. He may well recall people in light of anothers testimony. He asks questions that only allow a yes/no answer because allowing the witness a narrative answer can allow them to further explain themselves, much like we saw today.

It is the job of the defence to elicit explanations, the job of the Crown to point out discrepancies. No barrister is allowed to bully a witness, but they can paint you into a corner if the evidence and testimony allows. Once a question is asked and answered (How long was SH outside) they can't continue by asking how long it takes to smoke, wash hands, return. This was asked and answered. If SH response to how long she was outside was 'I don't know' the follow up questions could be asked in order to ascertain it. The prosecutor is speaking on behalf of 'The Crown', he has to be respectful.

The closing will point out all the discrepancies, the judge will instruct the jury, and the jury will weigh it up.

Juries are you and I, and they know if you can go all day without peeing, or if you can get yourself and a child to bed and asleep in just over 30 mins. They have also heard how much of this has occured with a small child in tow. They have MUCH more than we do.

Great post, NSS, very informative. We have to remember we are only party to a fraction of what the jury knows.

I'm confused about the bit I bolded though, and I'll use the same example: If someone said they were outside for 20 minutes having a cigarette (which we all knows takes a quarter of that time) at what point does someone ask her to elaborate on WHY it took so long? This is a sticking point with us here as it seems mighty convenient she was out of the house for just enough time, if it had been a nice sunny day we'd have bought it, but it wasn't. Most smokers would smoke up and get back into the warmth, if they even went outside in the first place, note ashtray in conservatory.

So if we're asking that question, surely the jury would too? They can't just take her word for it, can they?

 

[Beesknees]

Can I make a comment on the concern over the 'tame' nature of questioning by the pros? In the UK, the judiciary is much more respectfull than the adversarial nature of US courts. Neither is better, but they are different. The prosecutor has tied all the accused or witnesses into a 'version of events'. He has pointed out the differences in their story then and their story now. He may well recall people in light of anothers testimony. He asks questions that only allow a yes/no answer because allowing the witness a narrative answer can allow them to further explain themselves, much like we saw today.

It is the job of the defence to elicit explanations, the job of the Crown to point out discrepancies. No barrister is allowed to bully a witness, but they can paint you into a corner if the evidence and testimony allows. Once a question is asked and answered (How long was SH outside) they can't continue by asking how long it takes to smoke, wash hands, return. This was asked and answered. If SH response to how long she was outside was 'I don't know' the follow up questions could be asked in order to ascertain it. The prosecutor is speaking on behalf of 'The Crown', he has to be respectful.

The closing will point out all the discrepancies, the judge will instruct the jury, and the jury will weigh it up.

Juries are you and I, and they know if you can go all day without peeing, or if you can get yourself and a child to bed and asleep in just over 30 mins. They have also heard how much of this has occured with a small child in tow. They have MUCH more than we do.

Thank you so much for this post. Informative and gave me hope about the only thing why I'm here: seeing that none of the ones who took Becky's life might leave free after the trial with a smile in their lips.

 

[MamaJoJo]

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update...l-accused-searched-internet-for-missing-teen/

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

This article contradicts the other posted up thread in that it says DD deleted "all text message data from his mobile phone". The other article relays the number break down of text message data that was deleted (not everything apparently).

:deadhorse:

 

[mrazda71]

IMO. This Trial will be life changing for all involved. From the guilty to the innocent. From the Judge and the Barrister's. To the Jury and those who've filled the Court Room. It's such a sad end to a young girls life. For why?
I don't think we'll ever know. But we've all been covered by the shroud of sadness. I just hope that Becky's family can find closure once the Judge had passed his sentence. #justiceforBecky

I think you're right ... except maybe for bringing closure for the family, I think if Becky had been killed by a stranger then a trial and sentence may bring some answers and closure but when it's family IN the dock I don't know if the same can be said ... not only have they had Becky taken from them but, Anji has also lost her son, daughter in law and almost certainly her grandchildren and once the trial dust has settled let's hope they can still hang on to each other for comfort because it has to be hard not to apportion blame or feel guilt in this particular situation

 

[Cherwell]

Great post, NSS, very informative. We have to remember we are only party to a fraction of what the jury knows.

I'm confused about the bit I bolded though, and I'll use the same example: If someone said they were outside for 20 minutes having a cigarette (which we all knows takes a quarter of that time) at what point does someone ask her to elaborate on WHY it took so long? This is a sticking point with us here as it seems mighty convenient she was out of the house for just enough time, if it had been a nice sunny day we'd have bought it, but it wasn't. Most smokers would smoke up and get back into the warmth, if they even went outside in the first place, note ashtray in conservatory.

So if we're asking that question, surely the jury would too? They can't just take her word for it, can they?

They certainly don't have to take her word. It's the combinations of questions and answers that cast doubt in their minds, plus the other information they have. Not only did she say she was outside for 20 minutes, she also had to admit that it was raining. And remember, the jury have visited the house. They will have seen the conservatory with ashtrays inside. They will ask themselves why SH would spend 20 minutes smoking outside in the rain when she could have gone into the conservatory and stayed dry.

I do wonder why she didn't say she took the dog for a walk. That was supposedly one of the things they went to do. Dogs get walked even in the rain. We've never seen this dog, have we? Wonder what kind of dog it is. Where was it when Becky was attacked? Did it bark? Questions that no one seems to have asked.

 

[Clio]

<rsbm>
I do wonder why she didn't say she took the dog for a walk. That was supposedly one of the things they went to do. Dogs get walked even in the rain. We've never seen this dog, have we? Wonder what kind of dog it is. Where was it when Becky was attacked? Did it bark? Questions that no one seems to have asked.

Lack of potential witnesses/CCTV if she had taken the dog out but there was nothing to confirm it? Safer to say she was doing something which nobody could be expected to confirm? I don't know what kind it is but there are photos of a dog DG's on FB page. SH said that the dog was in a cage.

The detectives asked Hoare a series of follow-up questions based on her initial comments.
"I think Nathan reversed onto the drive, so that the front of the car was facing the road," Hoare said. "I was in front of Nathan and I had my back to him and I went straight to the kitchen. I heard him shut the living room door to let the dog out of the cage.

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...tory-27967420-detail/story.html#ixzz3qZCaW0P1

ETA It seems to have been NM's job to walk the dog. There are a few things that have been said about "it would look odd if...". Maybe that was one of them - it would look odd if SH walked the dog.

 

[Beesknees]

They certainly don't have to take her word. It's the combinations of questions and answers that cast doubt in their minds, plus the other information they have. Not only did she say she was outside for 20 minutes, she also had to admit that it was raining. And remember, the jury have visited the house. They will have seen the conservatory with ashtrays inside. They will ask themselves why SH would spend 20 minutes smoking outside in the rain when she could have gone into the conservatory and stayed dry.

I do wonder why she didn't say she took the dog for a walk. That was supposedly one of the things they went to do. Dogs get walked even in the rain. We've never seen this dog, have we? Wonder what kind of dog it is. Where was it when Becky was attacked? Did it bark? Questions that no one seems to have asked.

The dog is a black dog, small/medium size. He can be seen being lapped by DG and also by AG in DG's Facebook page. There, in the same page, a picture with Becky, Dan (her brother), DG and AG can be seen. It was perhaps around the time they joined together as Becky appears to be 5 or 6 years old. They are all smilling and Becky is leaning her head in her dad's arm and has a cute sweet face