GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #14

[Tealgrove]

I saw pictures of them being taken into Crown Hill (DG/AG's house) but not NM/SH's.

Aha, found it!

Near the 3/4 way point in this article they mention "special" dogs that have been brought in. It's a bit confusing however they talk about the dogs AFTER body parts have been found and their ongoing forensic investigation. So I think they used them early on and I think they used them once Becky had been found.

Maybe this is why they are so certain that Becky was dismembered in the bathtub. Maybe they got hits in there from the dogs.

When I go back and look at the pictures of the search and once they find Becky, I am shocked at how little physical evidence we have heard about. It doesn't make sense to me when I see the effort and the sheer number of investigators that were on scene.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2975374/Man-woman-arrested-missing-Becky-Watts.html

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I just had a look through Becky's FB page. One thing that stood out to me was on her last profile pic there are a couple of shares, and on one of those shares is a screen shot apparently from SB, Becky's aunt. I'll paraphrase: Finally able to tell you all who did it, had to keep quiet to ensure we'd get Becky back.

Makes me wonder if the family knew that NM/SH had done something for a while before arrests were made?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Aha, found it!

Near the 3/4 way point in this article they mention "special" dogs that have been brought in. It's a bit confusing however they talk about the dogs AFTER body parts have been found and their ongoing forensic investigation. So I think they used them early on and I think they used them once Becky had been found.

Maybe this is why they are so certain that Becky was dismembered in the bathtub. Maybe they got hits in there from the dogs.

When I go back and look at the pictures of the search and once they find Becky, I am shocked at how little physical evidence we have heard about. It doesn't make sense to me when I see the effort and the sheer number of investigators that were on scene.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2975374/Man-woman-arrested-missing-Becky-Watts.html

1200 bits of evidence. Way more than we've heard about.

 

[Gigi-G]

Do we know for a fact that they didn't? Reason I ask this is because I recall seeing photos in the early going and I swear I saw LE with dogs and I even recall someone comment that they might be cadaver dogs. Maybe my mind is playing games with me but I am quite certain that they used dogs in one of the houses at one time. Anyone recall this or know where those pictures are?

I think the dogs were around. But I think the flow of conversation was if the dogs were Cadaver or not. If the dogs were just search dogs. They may of had something of BW'S as their marker. But remember. At that stage she was 'missing' the essence was to find. And track BW.
I'm not sure how there's a difference. But different dogs are trained for different purposes. E.g Sniffer dog's for drugs/explosives etc.

 

[YidArmyRach]

They were pushed for time NM & SH. They could see that the Police were getting ever closer.
I really do think that given that BW had been missing for some days. That there should of been a Cadaver dog at every house search.
Maybe that might be an added pointer to the SOCO/ CSI teams to bring a Cadaver dog in anyways. Especially in these sorts of missing cases. Very often its been family members involved. Would hasten the search up no end.

Yes, especially as it was known from the very beginning that Becky was alive and well when Anjie left the house, and NM and SH were in the house, minus Becky when she returned. With SH and NM telling Anjie that they had heard Becky leave, they had actually placed themselves as the last people to be with her prior to her disappearance.

As there wasn't a single sighting of her outside the house, and as her mobile phone activity stopped shortly after Anjie left the house and SH/NM entered the house, I can't believe that these two weren't properly checked out the day she was officially reported missing.

 

[Tealgrove]

1200 bits of evidence. Way more than we've heard about.

This is what I can't understand. With all that evidence, there's not a spec of DNA in the bathroom. What about under Becky's fingernails? What about in her bedroom?

This case seems to be built on the fact that NM confessed to some of the charges and the rest of the evidence seems to be circumstantial and yet they had 1200 bits of evidence.

I would have thought that this case would be made on DNA and I was expecting a rundown of this DNA connecting this person to this and so on and so on. Considering the fact that the body got moved from here to here to here and spent 3 days in SH/NM's home you would think that there would be a strong DNA transference somewhere along the line.

I find it mind boggling.

 

[Cherwell]

I just had a look through Becky's FB page. One thing that stood out to me was on her last profile pic there are a couple of shares, and on one of those shares is a screen shot apparently from SB, Becky's aunt. I'll paraphrase: Finally able to tell you all who did it, had to keep quiet to ensure we'd get Becky back.

Makes me wonder if the family knew that NM/SH had done something for a while before arrests were made?

I was certain they knew who was responsible when I saw this early video appeal with DG and his younger brother.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-rebecca-watts-dad-fears-5222741

"Things can be done in the heat of the moment - things can be done on impulse ..."
Seemed obvious to me that they suspected someone close.

 

[Cherwell]

This is what I can't understand. With all that evidence, there's not a spec of DNA in the bathroom. What about under Becky's fingernails? What about in her bedroom?

This case seems to be built on the fact that NM confessed to some of the charges and the rest of the evidence seems to be circumstantial and yet they had 1200 bits of evidence.

I would have thought that this case would be made on DNA and I was expecting a rundown of this DNA connecting this person to this and so on and so on. Considering the fact that the body got moved from here to here to here and spent 3 days in SH/NM's home you would think that there would be a strong DNA transference somewhere along the line.

I find it mind boggling.

Since NM has admitted killing Becky, there wouldn't be a need to present a lot of DNA evidence in Court. It doesn't mean they don't have any.

That said, I remember being surprised at how little trace Vincent Tabak had left in Joanna Yeates's flat. A similar situation in that the Crown did not have to prove that he had killed her, only that it was murder rather than manslaughter.

SH is a different matter of course - she seems literally to have kept her hands clean. Metaphorically, not so much. :sheesh:

 

[edgedweller]

Shame you didn't accidentally run him over

Yes that was a missed opportunity. [emoji51]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gigi-G]

I just had a look through Becky's FB page. One thing that stood out to me was on her last profile pic there are a couple of shares, and on one of those shares is a screen shot apparently from SB, Becky's aunt. I'll paraphrase: Finally able to tell you all who did it, had to keep quiet to ensure we'd get Becky back.

Makes me wonder if the family knew that NM/SH had done something for a while before arrests were made?

Ooh I didn't see that.
But from her fb. She seemed to be a happy go lucky normal teenager. Who had friends that loved her as well as her family.

But yes.. It does make you wonder.

 

[Tortoise]

I think the girl working at the takeaway shop had a very lucky escape. It's strange that we haven't heard much more about this exchange between SH and her on fb - wonder if there have been reporting restrictions on that too.

 

[Deleted member 113679]

I was certain they knew who was responsible when I saw this early video appeal with DG and his younger brother.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-rebecca-watts-dad-fears-5222741

"Things can be done in the heat of the moment - things can be done on impulse ..."
Seemed obvious to me that they suspected someone close.

And replay the fb status from DG about wives mothers checking for blood, read it again carefully with names inserted, I think he suspected.

 

[TupeloMz]

And replay the fb status from DG about wives mothers checking for blood, read it again carefully with names inserted, I think he suspected.

Can you tell me where I can find that? I have read where folks have talked about it but have not read it myself
Thanks in advance.

***never mind...I found it.

 

[Gigi-G]

I think the girl working at the takeaway shop had a very lucky escape. It's strange that we haven't heard much more about this exchange between SH and her on fb - wonder if there have been reporting restrictions on that too.

Agreed. It does make your mind boggle.
It's a very complex case. With so many discrepancies. Mixed motives. And sadistic overtones. And it does make me wonder. How many 16 year old had a close escape.....
Sends positive shivers down my spine.

 

[Gigi-G]

😤😨😡 can't sleep mind way too active! Gahhh! 😩😵😱

 

[Gigi-G]

I think the girl working at the takeaway shop had a very lucky escape. It's strange that we haven't heard much more about this exchange between SH and her on fb - wonder if there have been reporting restrictions on that too.

I expect names have been covert. But I'm guessing the girls concerned would of been interviewed. Especially the one who worked the same Take away as NM.

 

[Legal]

Hello! I am a long time lurker on here. I found this site when Joanna Yeates disappeared and have followed different cases and trials on here. People's ideas and views are very interesting.

I decided to join as there have been several questions posed here, some of which I think I can answer. I have studied UK criminal law, although I am not a professional in this area, so please understand the points I make are my own opinions, based on my studies.

Firstly, people have queried why some of the defendants have received bail and others not. To determine bail, the defence and prosecution will each present their cases to a judge, who will make the final decision. This is legal argument based on the Bail Act 1976. Basically, the arguments relate to the likelihood of the defendant absconding (does s/he have ties to the community? job? family? etc), the likelihood of the defendant committing a further crime while on bail, and if they will interfere with evidence or witnesses. The judge can also grant conditional bail eg. the defendant will have to report to a police station every day or keep away from a certain area/person.

There has been some interesting discussion about why the computer video evidence of the rape has been introduced here when in the Vincent Tabak case, his viewing of violent was hidden from the jury. This is called bad character evidence and as has been mentioned, the prejudicial effect should not outweigh the probative value. The law on this comes from the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and basically, legal argument is presented to the judge before the trial on this, as well as other issues, such as hearsay. Bad character evidence of a defendant can be introduced in 7 different ways. One is if all parties agree it should be introduced. The second is if the defendant provides the information (perhaps to show s/he is a reformed character and is being honest). Another way is if the defendant attacks another person's character.

Now what I am going to say is my opinion only. The judge in the VT case ruled the evidence to be too prejudicial, possibly because watching videos of women being strangled does not show you are in the habit of killing women yourself. However, I became very aware when reading the court transcripts that his barrister was exceptionally careful to avoid saying anything negative about Joanna, even though there had been no witnesses and VT could have blamed everything on her. This led me to suspect he had something to hide that he didn't want to come out through attacking her character. I guessed it wouldn't have been killing someone as that would probably have been introduced into court but it must have been something that could have been damaging to his case.

With regards to NM and SH, attacking a person's character not only in court but also on being questioned under caution or after being charged opens the gateway to bad character evidence being introduced, so I would guess this is why the information about the rape video has been allowed in court, especially as there are substantial similarities between the video and what allegedly happened to Becky.

All my opinion of course. Sorry for such a lengthy post!

 

[babame]

I was certain they knew who was responsible when I saw this early video appeal with DG and his younger brother.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-rebecca-watts-dad-fears-5222741

"Things can be done in the heat of the moment - things can be done on impulse ..."
Seemed obvious to me that they suspected someone close.

This is the first time I've watched that particular video, how heartbreaking. I found it very difficult to watch and yes I think they may have already had their suspicions.

 

[Wallace]

Something that has been bugging me since I read it yesterday.

In NM's statement about his kidnapping attempt he claimed the following:

He went back out to the car and got his kidnap kit

Took all the items upstairs and got ready outside BW's bedroom

Put on the mask and the knocked on her door and said 'can I come in?'

OK here is my problem. He claims to have been disguising his identity at this point. He claims that he killed BW in a panic when his mask slipped and he was identified. Yet he knocked on her door and said 'can I come in?' Really? Would a 16 year old expect a complete stranger to knock on her bedroom door? Would a shy 16 year old girl invite a complete stranger into her bedroom?

 

[mrazda71]

Hello! I am a long time lurker on here. I found this site when Joanna Yeates disappeared and have followed different cases and trials on here. People's ideas and views are very interesting.

I decided to join as there have been several questions posed here, some of which I think I can answer. I have studied UK criminal law, although I am not a professional in this area, so please understand the points I make are my own opinions, based on my studies.

Firstly, people have queried why some of the defendants have received bail and others not. To determine bail, the defence and prosecution will each present their cases to a judge, who will make the final decision. This is legal argument based on the Bail Act 1976. Basically, the arguments relate to the likelihood of the defendant absconding (does s/he have ties to the community? job? family? etc), the likelihood of the defendant committing a further crime while on bail, and if they will interfere with evidence or witnesses. The judge can also grant conditional bail eg. the defendant will have to report to a police station every day or keep away from a certain area/person.

There has been some interesting discussion about why the computer video evidence of the rape has been introduced here when in the Vincent Tabak case, his viewing of violent was hidden from the jury. This is called bad character evidence and as has been mentioned, the prejudicial effect should not outweigh the probative value. The law on this comes from the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and basically, legal argument is presented to the judge before the trial on this, as well as other issues, such as hearsay. Bad character evidence of a defendant can be introduced in 7 different ways. One is if all parties agree it should be introduced. The second is if the defendant provides the information (perhaps to show s/he is a reformed character and is being honest). Another way is if the defendant attacks another person's character.

Now what I am going to say is my opinion only. The judge in the VT case ruled the evidence to be too prejudicial, possibly because watching videos of women being strangled does not show you are in the habit of killing women yourself. However, I became very aware when reading the court transcripts that his barrister was exceptionally careful to avoid saying anything negative about Joanna, even though there had been no witnesses and VT could have blamed everything on her. This led me to suspect he had something to hide that he didn't want to come out through attacking her character. I guessed it wouldn't have been killing someone as that would probably have been introduced into court but it must have been something that could have been damaging to his case.

With regards to NM and SH, attacking a person's character not only in court but also on being questioned under caution or after being charged opens the gateway to bad character evidence being introduced, so I would guess this is why the information about the rape video has been allowed in court, especially as there are substantial similarities between the video and what allegedly happened to Becky.

All my opinion of course. Sorry for such a lengthy post!

Welcome Legal

Great post, thanks