All the pros words at the moment are placing NM as the killer, HIM suffocating Becky. Is pros not allowed to question if SH was the one doing that not NM? Otherwise him referring to NM as doing all those things puts SH in the clear (for murder)?
I was thinking about this, and the prosecution in general, as I was doing the school run. Up to now, I have been disappointed with the prosecution and the rather tame nature of it, and the lack of challenging NM and SH's account of what happened. Then I started thinking that maybe the most obvious bit of evidence against them, is their own words.
I mean: for the jury to find SH not guilty, then they have to believe her story, and NM's story. So, they would have to believe that:
NM, a rather small man, badly affected with Fibro (to the point of struggling to hang up washing) was able to single-handedly overpower a fit and healthy 16 year old. They would have to believe he was able to tape her mouth with sellotape (not the easiest of tape to use) and put handcuffs on her without her fighting back - both of which actions are at least as tricky as hanging up washing. He was able to do this quickly and quietly - despite the pm evidence showing she had put up a fight, and stating it would have taken some time.
They'd have to believe she had taken 20 minutes to smoke a cigarette in the rain, with her child. That she hadn't seen or heard anything. They would have to believe she had heard stomping and a door slamming, rather than the sound of a heavy suitcase being dragged down the stairs. They'd have to believe NM was clean, tidy and not sweating when SH saw him immediately afterwards.
They'd have to believe his story that he just punched her once - regardless of the 40 injuries. They'd have to believe that NM strangled Becky, as opposed to pm evidence showing she had been smothered.
They'd have to believe this man who is always tired and in pain could carry a body downstairs, get it into his car, then carry it upstairs with no help.
They'd have to believe he cut up her body, using just one hand to operate an electric saw
whilst having both eyes shut. They'd have to believe he could cut up a body, making no 'wrong cuts' and not even touching the side of the bath with the saw, not even once.
They'd have to believe that SH didn't notice any strange odour in her house, believe that this pregnant woman didn't go to the toilet often, was happy to wee in a lego bucket for days, and happy not to wash herself or her child for 3 days. This woman who was suffering from morning sickness remember.... but doesn't need the bathroom very often.
They'd have to believe that SH didn't find it odd that NM (who in her own words didn't do DIY very often) suddenly spent 3 days fixing a toilet .... that she didn't find it odd that a previously tight NM spent almost £100 on a saw to fix their toilet, then spent a similar amount on shopping. They'd have to believe she didn't find it odd that he was buying rolls and rolls of clingfilm (without seeing any of it used). They'd have to believe she didn't notice her shower curtain or bath mats suddenly go missing. She didn't question why he wasn't helping search for his stepsister, rather than fix a toilet.
They'd also have to believe she can sleep through the noise made by a number of men unloading heavy items from her loft, in the dark, right outside her bedroom ... amongst all the clutter.
They'd have to believe it was a coincidence that she decided to visit her estranged mother on exactly the day the police want to search her house, and they'd have to believe that she didn't find it odd that NM had arranged a lift home for them.
So, either the jury believe all of that ..... which frankly is laughable ...... or they don't believe that story, in which case -they would have to believe that something else had happened. So the only thing that could have happened must be the opposite of their story - that she did do it. If the story SH and MN are telling is so unbelievable, there has to be a reason for that - which is that the truth would tell a very different story, and would be easy to prove.
Is that why the defence has been so happy to let SH and MN get on with their story? After all, if they are pressed to clarify and explain things, they might come up with something more believable...... so by not grilling them, the ridiculous story is what the jurors have to debate.
