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

[Alyce]

I do hope, if DD is found guilty that he gets a lesser sentence. The evidence against him was pretty poor.
Won't JP and KD get shorter sentences for pleading guilty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah yes, I had forgotten about the guilty pleas.

I did some checking and it seems Assisting an Offender has a sentence of anything from 3 to 10 years - depending on the circumstances obviously ( sorry, beginning to hate that word now ! ).

Guilty pleas gain a one sixth reduction in sentence.

So if they were all given the minumum 3 year sentence that would mean 18 months for JI and DD, minus 8 months already served.
And 3 years, minus one sixth and reduced by half equals 15 months for KD and JP, minus the 8 already served.

Am assuming that even though DD and JP are out on bail, this still counts as part of their sentence.

And I suppose the Judge has the discretion to rule that the sentence could be suspended, particularly in the case of DD ?

 

[Tortoise]

Majority? Isn't it by unanimity in the UK?
You mean that if they are 11 in the jury it is enough 6 of them against 5 for example?

If the jury can't reach a unanimous verdict, the judge will direct them. After a decent amount of time, say 3-4 ? days in a case like this, he will say he can accept a majority of 9 - 2 or 10 - 1.

 

[Clio]

was it to do with SH coming back with NM on the Friday, thinking he had been out working with a mate and finding the loo out of order/door locked, whereas it had been fine when they left that morning?

No, but that did jump out at me- I think there was only one tweet about that? Maybe someone can find it so we can discuss it further.

These ones?

Siobhan Robbins Verified account  ‏@SiobhanRobbins · 3 hrs3 hours ago
SH says knew nothing of plan to cut Becky up.WM questions that saying SH claims no problem with bathroom 20th AM -that night out of order.

Siobhan Robbins Verified account  ‏@SiobhanRobbins · 3 hrs3 hours ago
WM says that doesn't make sense as NM wasn't meant to have been there that day but with a friend

 

[Alyce]

I'd like the maximum possible sentence for NM, for what he did afterwards as much as anything, the man's unhinged...

I'm on the fence with SH, not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she was there when Becky was killed. I believe she was complicit in either kidnapping Becky, or disposing of her, or most likely both. She needs putting away for a long time too, but I just can't put a number on it.

In fact I'm on the fence with the others, too. I don't think they knew what they were storing was Becky, not in a million years, so that leaves "being guilty of helping out a mate with something they knew was dodgy and not calling police asap". They MUST have asked him what it was, and he MUST have said stolen goods or drugs, so either way they've abetted a criminal. Sentences? Over 5 years would be harsh. 2 years? Greed has ruined everything for them.

But ultimately I (and we) have got to trust the jury on this - they know a huge amount more than we do. They've seen every movement, they've heard the intonation/emotion in any statements made, they are party to lots more information than we are. At some point it'll all come out in the wash* and we'll understand some bits better. Hope so anyway!

As long as NM gets a sentence as long as one of Shauna's cigs (!) I'll be happy. What a giant mess they've created, countless lives wrecked and relationships irreparably damaged. And then, of course, there's the loss of Becky

It's been a crazy ride and I've loved sharing it with you all :loveyou: (will try not to add kisses this time...)


*not literally, Beesknees, I mean we will get to hear about many of the parts that we've missed!

BIB I think there will be a huge amount of previously unknown information that will come out, via both MSM and FB, once the sentences have been passed.
And possibly a book or two.

 

[Jinkasaurus]

These ones?

Siobhan Robbins Verified account  ‏@SiobhanRobbins · 3 hrs3 hours ago
SH says knew nothing of plan to cut Becky up.WM questions that saying SH claims no problem with bathroom 20th AM -that night out of order.

Siobhan Robbins Verified account  ‏@SiobhanRobbins · 3 hrs3 hours ago
WM says that doesn't make sense as NM wasn't meant to have been there that day but with a friend

yes- maybe someone who has a better grasp on some of these details can elaborate on the point WM was making here....

 

[Tortoise]

Yes disapponted no doubt. Even having in mind (as someone explained me here) that in the UK the prosecutors are much more respectful and soft than in the US, I expected a deeper cross examination and much more points/evidence/discrepancies pointed. Even today when closing arguments he could have been much more embracing. Mainly pointing each and every time SH called all of us stupid trying to make us believe the impossible. Anyway, let's see what the veredict brings.

Also about the real time of work in court I find it so little time and I wonder why. All of them (judges, prosecutors, barristers, etc) are high regarded classes, very well paid and I know they have loads of work that is not under our eyes. But the times of court are very short and full of breaks...

Never be offended when I - a foreigner - might be critical about things in the UK or the US or wherever. It is these countries we are discussing about.

I am deeply critical of my country when I see things are not right and unfortunately I have many things here to criticise.

This has nothing to do with any prejudice because I am from another country. It is what I think and we all have in all countries and peoples the great and the bad. It is just as it is.

It might seem like the court hours are short but when you are on the jury it is shattering, there is a lot to digest, not only what everyone is saying but watching the people. if you didn't have two 10 minute breaks you would have the jury switching off and thinking I need the loo etc, not fully concentrating.

 

[Jinkasaurus]

I have never followed a case or trial from the UK before. I was surprised at how "soft ball" the questioning by the prosecution seemed to be. It seemed like a walk in the park for SH to be on the stand.

I did enjoy the closing though. I felt that he did a wonderful job of just getting to the core issues of the case, without getting lost in the weeds.

Given that this is trial by tweet, I don't know how different I would feel if I had watched a live feed.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Yes disapponted no doubt. Even having in mind (as someone explained me here) that in the UK the prosecutors are much more respectful and soft than in the US, I expected a deeper cross examination and much more points/evidence/discrepancies pointed. Even today when closing arguments he could have been much more embracing. Mainly pointing each and every time SH called all of us stupid trying to make us believe the impossible. Anyway, let's see what the veredict brings.

Also about the real time of work in court I find it so little time and I wonder why. All of them (judges, prosecutors, barristers, etc) are high regarded classes, very well paid and I know they have loads of work that is not under our eyes. But the times of court are very short and full of breaks...

Never be offended when I - a foreigner - might be critical about things in the UK or the US or wherever. It is these countries we are discussing about.

I am deeply critical of my country when I see things are not right and unfortunately I have many things here to criticise.

This has nothing to do with any prejudice because I am from another country. It is what I think and we all have in all countries and peoples the great and the bad. It is just as it is.

It definitely has felt lacklustre at times, and short, but I reckon we'd all feel differently if it had been televised and we'd heard the whole thing. I haven't watched many live trials, Pistorius being the last one, but it made me uncomfortable how aggressive it all was there.

 

[Clio]

You know I have always thought that since I started following last week ( ) and all the murkier stuff will come out later

but I am still wondering why the extra charges against her have been dropped. Clio said they have but i don't know the reason - the "indecent images of a child" ones.

Anyone the wiser on this?

No I didn't. I said they were not part of this trial. I then edited to say that The indecent images charge might even have been dropped by which I meant it is not impossible that they have been dropped.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

BIB I think there will be a huge amount of previously unknown information that will come out, via both MSM and FB, once the sentences have been passed.
And possibly a book or two.

I'm trying to recall how long it is before all the details come out. And when will sentencing be? I need to plan my diary (and possibly my husbands lol!) so I can be home that day.

 

[sar2them1984]

If the jury can't reach a unanimous verdict, the judge will direct them. After a decent amount of time, say 3-4 ? days in a case like this, he will say he can accept a majority of 9 - 2 or 10 - 1.

I can't remember do the jury have to return a verdict of the same principle in every case

I.e could they reach a unanimous verdict for two of SH charges and a majority verdict in the 3rd for instance, or do they all have to be the same? Does that make sense?? I'm tired and on the hop so fingers aren't working now

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

Majority? Isn't it by unanimity in the UK?
You mean that if they are 11 in the jury it is enough 6 of them against 5 for example?

No it could not be such a close split as 6 against 5.

On a normal Jury of 12 people, the usual Majority Verdict allowed is 10 - 2.

As this Jury is only 11 people, I think a 9 - 2 Majority Verdict will be allowed ( if necessary ).

I do remember, somewhere way back in my memory, of a case where the Majority for a 12 person Jury was 9 - 3

But I dont think, with only 11 people that the Judge would allow an 8 - 3 Majority.

Let's hope it doesnt come to any Majority Verdicts and that they can all agree on Unanimous Verdicts.

Edited to add, have just seen Tortoise's much better explanation above and of course it could be 10 - 1 majority verdict.

 

[Orange Tabby]

Just to go over the 'row out' comment by the pros qc, it's only an issue here is because it is a homograph (two words which the same spelling but different pronunciation), and the context of the courtroom makes its interpretation even more difficult, if you are unfamiliar with the expression.

In a different context, it makes more sense, like when the sailors inside of the lifeboats of the Titanic, as she was beginning to sink, were to 'row out' to a safe distance from the ship to avoid being pulled under by the suction of the ship as she went under the icy water.

And who better to explain this than Thomas Andrews, the naval architect of the Titanic who went down with the ship!

 

[Beesknees]

Gigi-G and sar2them1984 said all what I think and at least they are able to explain it well which I am not.

At the end the Prosecution tactic could be good in another crime and other defendants. A crime not as serious as this one.

Given the nature of this crime and the coldness in which it was comited by NM and SH and also its aftermath the pros had to dig deeper.

IMO he could have done a great work but was happy with a small work. But this crime is not compatible with 'small works' because it was ENORMOUS the demage these two created :cry:

 

[ColourPurple]

Here are the tweets that jumped out at me the most:


Siobhan Robbins Verified account  ‏@SiobhanRobbins · 26 secs27 seconds ago
" She was involved in this from the start to the finish"

Siobhan Robbins Verified account  ‏@SiobhanRobbins · 33 secs34 seconds ago
Wm: If she wasn't and that wasn't the plan would NM be so confident that he could regulate her behaviour?

Siobhan Robbins Verified account  ‏@SiobhanRobbins · 52 secs52 seconds ago
WM:Could he be confident that she wouldn't discover or report him?

- This is something I hadn't thought of- but makes perfect sense. If SH was not involved, how could NM be sure she wouldn't mess up his plan somehow? I am glad the prosecutor brought that up.

That's what I'd been trying to explain, badly I think lol. For example, that it isn't just that SH didnt open the freezer and find body parts... it's that even without telling her not to , he was confident that she wouldn't innocently open the freezer part of their fridge freezer, looking for something to eat (maybe some of the frozen stuff they'd bought from Asda) and instead find it full of frozen body parts, freak out and call the police. Luckily he was somehow able to stop her doing this "regulate her behaviour" without saying a word.

 

[sar2them1984]

No it could not be such a close split as 6 against 5.

On a normal Jury of 12 people, the usual Majority Verdict allowed is 10 - 2.

As this Jury is only 11 people, I think a 9 - 2 Majority Verdict will be allowed ( if necessary ).

I do remember, somewhere way back in my memory, of a case where the Majority for a 12 person Jury was 9 - 3

But I dont think, with only 11 people that the Judge would allow an 8 - 3 Majority.

Let's hope it doesnt come to any Majority Verdicts and that they can all agree on Unanimous Verdicts.

Where there are 11 jurors the verdict needs to be 10-1

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23#l1g19

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

I'm not dissapointed in Mr Mousley's delivery of the case today. I think in all fairness he has given the Jury an excellent base to find their answers.
However, I do find the entire case lack lustre. As in so many prominent aspects of evidence failed to be addressed. Such as pushing NM & SH for more disclosure on how and why they took BW's life. Where and when. Did he/they partake in the grisly aspects. And what they were hoping to achieve?
If it were me as the Prosecution, I would of ripped them both to shreds. Not let NM hide his face and sob. I'd demand answers. Same with SH. I would do my utmost to melt that cold, calculating, icicle. She would be on fire. And tripping herself up.
Wonder what tomorrow brings. AMOO

I started off thinking, oh why doesnt he probe more and ask more difficult questions but there was a great post on here ( yesterday ? ) from someone and sadly I cannot remember who, but it explained in good detail as to how much the Prosecutor can do.
I think Mr M has done a great job of showing just how ridiculous both NM and SHs stories are, and he ( or any Prosecutor ) has to trust that the Jury can see the relevance of his line of questioning and how he is revealing their lies.

I think if he were to ask NM and SH how and why they killed Becky and what they were hoping to achieve, then they are not going to answer him as it would only incriminate them further. So he would end up with cant remember, dont know, type of responses and ultimately it would begin to look as though he were badgering them to no avail.
I think it's a fine line between trying to get NM and SH to reveal as much as possible but knowing that, unless they crack, they are never going to tell the truth about what happened and why they did it.
But,as was said on here earlier, if Mr M can create the situation whereby the Jury do not believe a word of what they are saying, then the only option left ( hopefully ) is for the Jury to find them guilty.

 

[sar2them1984]

Just to add to my previous post the link below is a good crib sheet for juries...

I was unaware that there is no maximum deliberation time but they must deliberate for at least 2 hours

http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1/1_5_lay_people/1_5_2_juries/08_verdicts.htm

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

I have never followed a case or trial from the UK before. I was surprised at how "soft ball" the questioning by the prosecution seemed to be. It seemed like a walk in the park for SH to be on the stand.

I did enjoy the closing though. I felt that he did a wonderful job of just getting to the core issues of the case, without getting lost in the weeds.

Given that this is trial by tweet, I don't know how different I would feel if I had watched a live feed.

I know what you mean. We could hear his sarcasm and disbelief at their stories even through the written word, so I'm thinking it was probably a bit more forceful and scornful in person. Don't know if you've ever watched Judge Rinder but I was imagining him like that. lol

 

[sar2them1984]

I started off thinking, oh why doesnt he probe more and ask more difficult questions but there was a great post on here ( yesterday ? ) from someone and sadly I cannot remember who, but it explained in good detail as to how much the Prosecutor can do.
I think Mr M has done a great job of showing just how ridiculous both NM and SHs stories are, and he ( or any Prosecutor ) has to trust that the Jury can see the relevance of his line of questioning and how he is revealing their lies.

I think if he were to ask NM and SH how and why they killed Becky and what they were hoping to achieve, then they are not going to answer him as it would only incriminate them further. So he would end up with cant remember, dont know, type of responses and ultimately it would begin to look as though he were badgering them to no avail.
I think it's a fine line between trying to get NM and SH to reveal as much as possible but knowing that, unless they crack, they are never going to tell the truth about what happened and why they did it.
But,as was said on here earlier, if Mr M can create the situation whereby the Jury do not believe a word of what they are saying, then the only option left ( hopefully ) is for the Jury to find them guilty.

My frustration lies not with the fact that the pros can't ask the how's and whys of the crime (after all that's not the purpose of a trial) but rather that during the cross examinations themselves key areas of inconsistencie/inaccuracies weren't drilled down or ighlighted enough imo...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk