GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #6

[epiphany]

Now that is something I've been meaning to ask.
Do stun guns leave burn marks or bruises on a body?
I had an idea they did make a couple of marks, but these would be apparent to the forensic pathologist wouldn't they?

Also, if they do only leave bruises, can it be determined that a bruise was made by a stun gun? TYIA.

Testimony yesterday stated most of bruises and cuts on her body were consistent with injuries Becky received from carpet & furniture when she resisted

 

[Insp.Dots]

Are we talking about those masks that cover your nose and mouth while painting or using toxic supplies? With the tampon, I sort of thought maybe it became dislodged with the cutting and sawing of Becky's body?

Not even sure how to write this. I think the tampon was taken out on purpose. They weren't the brightest sparks but I think the stabs to abdomen may have been an attempt to 'drain' the body. They had the forethought to use cat litter and crystal to help this and to dispel smells. It is all SO horrific.

 

[Insp.Dots]

Stun guns can leave scorch marks..

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Yes, good thinking. Although we haven't heard of any injuries to say BW was actually hit they may have tried, that may be further along. I hope not.

 

[edgedweller]

Ah an American legal phrase. In the UK she physically does have to take the stand, but can provide no comment answers. Would imagine her barrister has advised her against this depending on how much evidence has been disclosed against her.

So glad that they HAVE to try to explain themselves - I'm looking forward to the prosecution's questions...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jessie]

Testimony yesterday stated most of bruises and cuts on her body were consistent with injuries Becky received from carpet & furniture when she resisted

Yes I remember that. Just that there was quite a large (8 cm?) bruise on forehead or face somewhere iirc so I did wonder if that could have been from a stun gun - or fist ? I've probably got it all incorrect anyway, so sorry.

 

[Insp.Dots]

Would depend on the type of stun gun and how it was used.

Most commonly there are two types of stun gun. The type with two metal electrodes which are pressed against the skin and the type that fire a barbed projectile on a long wire.

Haven't seen any pictures but it's most likely these were the two electrode type, usually the size of a large mobile phone.

If it were used with force it would be highly likely to cause brusing. Otherwise any other marks would be dependent on the power of the device.

There is so much happening so quickly it is hard to keep up but from what I've read about a struggle it seems unlikely that the stun guns were used. Either that or they were very low powered and effectively useless.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

There were two and they were the 2 prong electrode type. One looked like a torch. I think they leave a burn mark of sorts. Both were over 8000 volts

 

[epiphany]

I can't see where it says that the tampon and broken pieces of plastic were in the pocket, just that they were in the jumper, as the jumper had been cut up it's possible that the tampon and plastic was just wrapped up inside it. I'm only going by the FB updates though as haven't had time to read absolutely everything today.

Ah, you may be correct (BBM):

Siobhan Robbins ‏@SiobhanRobbins 5h5 hours ago

Jury shown jumper. Items also found inside jumper,a used bloodied tampon,some small pieces of broken plastic

https://twitter.com/SiobhanRobbins

I was thinking since used tampon and pieces of plastic (poss indicating a new tampon), she may have been returning from bathroom when the assault began.

 

[Clio]

Picture of the stun gun has been released. Photo from the UK & Eire site



Possibly why the officer missed it at first because it looks like a torch.

 

[edgedweller]

Sorry, now I'm really confused ! Maybe I'll just wait to see what happens?

ie: the defendant has to be "on the stand" but they can choose to not answer questions. Or can just say "I don't know" or "can't remember".
It doesn't reflect well on them if they do that though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[onthecounter]

I mean... if you somehow ended up with a dead relative in your car boot, that you desperately needed to get rid of, would you:

a) leave it there for hours, then take it home to put in your only bathroom, go shopping for a body chopping up kit, get your face plastered all over CCTV, dismember it noisily in a cluttered bathroom allowing DNA to go everywhere, spend a long time wrapping it with the nice shiny new things you bought, and then take it round your mates house to hide in a shed which is right next to a public road?

or

b) throw it into a river at night?

(disclaimer: I'm not a murderous psycho, I've just spent too long on websleuths)

This is why I think they both assumed rigor would be permanent and that they had to dismember the body, as the shape of a rigor body would not be able to be removed without being noticed. I also think there was an element of excitement in the act of undressing and dismemberment.

 

[Cherwell]

So glad that they HAVE to try to explain themselves - I'm looking forward to the prosecution's questions...

You may be disappointed, because defendants are not obliged to testify. There are some links further back regarding this.

 

[epiphany]

Yes I remember that. Just that there was quite a large (8 cm?) bruise on forehead or face somewhere iirc so I did wonder if that could have been from a stun gun - or fist ? I've probably got it all incorrect anyway, so sorry.

Some snips & links to Forensic Pathologist's findings below:


She said Becky's injuries around her mouth and nose were consistent with a hand being placed over them to suffocate her. She gave this as the cause of death.

She said the teen would have had a "fight or flight" reaction causing her to struggle.

An otherwise healthy and conscious individual cannot be suffocated with ease, it is very difficult, and a person will struggle when the mouth and nose are obstructed.

The bruising was all blunt trauma. Both positions of bruising around the back of the head and the back, are consistent with somebody who is face up with their airways obstructed trying to fight off that obstruction.

– Dr Deborah Cook

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update...times-after-she-died-graphic-content-warning/


Other pieces included her left arm and hand, which sustained three injuries, though her long finger nails, varnished red, remained undamaged...Dr Cook said bruising on Becky's face and body was consistent with her being suffocated and hurting herself on carpet or furniture as she resisted.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Becky-...ed-pieces-40/story-27984989-detail/story.html


“There were no injuries to the right hand.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/becky-watts-murder-trial-live-6631230

 

[Alyce]

Some snips & links to Forensic Pathologist's findings below:


She said Becky's injuries around her mouth and nose were consistent with a hand being placed over them to suffocate her. She gave this as the cause of death.

She said the teen would have had a "fight or flight" reaction causing her to struggle.

An otherwise healthy and conscious individual cannot be suffocated with ease, it is very difficult, and a person will struggle when the mouth and nose are obstructed.

The bruising was all blunt trauma. Both positions of bruising around the back of the head and the back, are consistent with somebody who is face up with their airways obstructed trying to fight off that obstruction.

– Dr Deborah Cook

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update...times-after-she-died-graphic-content-warning/


Other pieces included her left arm and hand, which sustained three injuries, though her long finger nails, varnished red, remained undamaged...Dr Cook said bruising on Becky's face and body was consistent with her being suffocated and hurting herself on carpet or furniture as she resisted.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Becky-...ed-pieces-40/story-27984989-detail/story.html


“There were no injuries to the right hand.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/becky-watts-murder-trial-live-6631230

and, presumably, they can tell whether this was NM or SHs hand....

 

[epiphany]

As others have opined, does not appear that stun guns were used...bruises are from blunt trauma & her valiant struggle

 

[sar2them1984]

As others have opined, does not appear that stun guns were used...bruises are from blunt trauma & her valiant struggle

I was referring to perhaps one being used incorrectly and scorching duvet

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Insp.Dots]

NM has pleaded guilty to all but Murder, SH has denied all. Was thinking if she had at least admitted to assisting an offender and preventing lawful burial the Family may not have had to listen to all the post killing actions, the prosecution could have just given a brief outline. No wonder people hate her!

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Another stun gun was found in the rear bedroom, while PC Giles Fletcher was searching a black bag from the front room. "I found a black torch with 'police' written on the side. I believed this to be a stun gun as it had an extra switch on the bottom which didn't look normal. I asked for the fire arms unit to make the torch safe".

– PC Giles Fletcher

I wonder why nothing was said or done about the stun gun when it was first seen in the house ?

I googled, I think this is what they mean "rechargeable police flash light with stun gun taser"



Probably just thought it was a torch.

 

[ChuckieD]

I was thinking since used tampon and pieces of plastic (poss indicating a new tampon), she may have been returning from bathroom when the assault began.

Possibly but I'd of thought she'd of at least wrapped it in tissue, though maybe she wrapped it in the plastic wrapping of the new one. Does it state whether her onesie was cut or torn? If it was removed in her bedroom he'd of had to take her onesie off first. Seems odd the jumper would cut off and not the onesie. The only reason I could think of them cutting off the jumper would be because they couldn't bend her arms due to rigor but again they'd have to do the same with the onesie. I'm confusing myself now :facepalm:

 

[Insp.Dots]

So glad that they HAVE to try to explain themselves - I'm looking forward to the prosecution's questions...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/
Home » Prosecution Policy and Guidance » Legal Guidance » A to C » Adverse Inferences

Adverse Inferences

Introduction
Section 34, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Sections 35 to 37, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Section 38, Interpretation and Savings
The Right to Silence and the ECHR
The six necessary conditions prior to an adverse inference being drawn
What prevents Section 34 applying?
When can Section 34 apply?
Pre-interview Disclosure
Legal Advice to be Silent
The Defendant waiving Legal Privilege
Prepared and self-serving statements practice and procedure
Procedure
Introduction
This chapter provides important guidance on the law and practice surrounding adverse inferences.

Apart from this chapter, prosecutors should consider the guidance that has been prepared at Centrex and sets out the police considerations for dealing with adverse inferences - Centrex Guidance.

Section 34, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
A court can draw an adverse inference from a defendant's silence in circumstances as set out in sections 34 to 37 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Section 34 allows an inference to be drawn when a suspect is silent when questioned under caution prior to charge (section 34(1)(a)).

An inference can also be drawn when a defendant is silent on charge (section 34(1)(b)).

These subsections are distinct and the fact that no inference can be drawn from silence during questioning does not mean that no adverse inference can be drawn from silence on charge.

In Dervish and Anori [2001] EWCA Crim. 2789, the trial judge had ruled that the defendants' no comment interviews were inadmissible, but had directed that the jury may draw an adverse inference from silence at charge in accordance with section 34(1)(b). At the Court of Appeal, the defendants had argued that this approach was wrong as the two limbs of section 34 were inextricably linked. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and approved the judge's approach.

There are two points that arise - (1) if faced with a situation of silence on charge and interview, you should remind the court of the potential drawing of adverse inference under both subsections, and; (2) if there is any doubt as to the admissibility of the interviews, you should be prepared to invite the court to draw an adverse inference under section 34(1)(b) if applicable.

This guidance will concentrate on section 34, as it is under this provision that adverse inferences are almost always invariably drawn.

Top of page

Sections 35 to 37, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Section 35 allows an inference to be drawn when a defendant is silent at trial. However, this section prevents an inference from being drawn when it appears to the court that "the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence."

R v Cowan [1996] Q.B. 373 sets out the five steps that a court must take prior to a section 35 adverse inference being drawn:

The judge must tell the jury that the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution throughout and what the required standard is;
The judge must make clear to the jury that the defendant has the right to remain silent;
An inference from failure to give evidence cannot on its own prove guilt;
Therefore the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. The jury may not believe witnesses whose evidence the judge thought raised a prima facie case;
If, having considered the defence case, the jury concludes that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant's having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination, they may draw an adverse inference.
In R v Becouarn [2005] UKHL 55, the House of Lords held that a jury did not have to be directed that there might be reasons for not giving evidence other than the inability to give an explanation or answer the prosecution case.

For the courtroom procedure pertaining to section 35, refer to The Consolidated Practice Direction (26 May 2005).

Section 36 allows an inference to be drawn when a person fails or refuses to account for objects, substances or marks found:

on his person; or
in/on his clothing or footwear; or
otherwise in his possession; or
in any place at the time of his arrest,
and when an investigating officer reasonable believes that the presence of such a mark, or substance or object may be attributable to that person' participation in the commission of an offence specified by the officer.

Section 37 allows an inference to be drawn when a defendant fails or refuses to account for his presence at a particular place where it is believed that he may have committed an offence.

Top of page

Section 38, Interpretation and Savings
Section 38 defines "legal representative" and "place".

Reference to "offence" includes any other offence of which the accused could be convicted on that charge, i.e. alternative charges as permitted by section 6(3) and 6(4) Criminal Law Act 1967. Refer to Drafting the Indictment, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

It is important for prosecutors to note section 38(3), which prevents a defendant being convicted (or committed or sent) solely on the basis of an adverse inference drawn from a silence. There must be a prima facie case against the defendant - R v Cowan [1996] Q.B. 373.

Top of page

The Right to Silence and the ECHR
The right to silence is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights. Although there is no express entitlement to remain silent, it has been held to be part of the generally recognised international standard of justice and is part of the system established by ECHR - Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29. However, this right is not absolute:

"Whether the drawing of adverse inferences from an accused's silence infringes Article 6 is a matter to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the case, having particular regard to the situations where inferences may be drawn, the weight to be attached to them by national courts in their assessment of the evidence and the degree of compulsion inherent in the situation." (Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29.)

Sections 34 and 35 are, per se, not a breach of the ECHR. In Condron v UK (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 1, the Strasbourg Court recognized that the CJPOA aims to strike an appropriate balance between the right to silence and the drawing of adverse inferences. Particular caution is required before an adverse inference can be drawn, but in a situation when an explanation is clearly called for from the defendant, then his silence will be relevant in assessing the persuasiveness of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

NB: They DO have the right to remain silent. Only if they get to the stand and then refuse to answer reasonable questions would they be held in contempt. Cherwell put up a link earlier.

 

[jessie]

Never having followed a trial in such detail before because of time commitments (always relying on msm reportings), I didn't think I would feel so
involved and become almost obsessed at keeping up. Also how draining it is. The UK & Eire Database links are so good, and all of you here too. Just wanted to say this during a quiet time.

My heart goes out to Becky's family, and I sincerely wish them continued strength now and in the future.