GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #7

[PrimeSuspect]

RBBM 1: He was the adult, not SH. Nathan was too old for her...14/15 yo when he began working on her

RBBM 2: What his GM said ^^, is similar to what Nathan was communicating to Shauna about Becky...getting her own way, running the household, manipulative, etc

You've nailed it again. NMs a pro at this, he's not to be believed.

 

[ms_x_to_the_m]

We are now allowed to report that a man burst into court and appeared to shout at the defendants in the dock.

The unidentified male, wearing a tracksuit, raised his voice towards Nathan Matthews and girlfriend Shauna Hoare. (From the UK & Eire FB page)

I wonder who this was...

The judge ordered the jury to ignore the disturbance and the man was removed from Bristol Crown Court.

What did he say?😨

 

[Edinlass]

What did he say?��

I wish I knew :/

Here's a link gives a bit of info..http://m.westerndailypress.co.uk/Be...court-shouts/story-28019010-detail/story.html

 

[ms_x_to_the_m]

You would have to put the key/card in the meter once you have purchased the electricity to "top up" the meter. I would have thought that the electricity company would be able to say when and how much was added to the meter I. E when the kwy/card was used to top up the meter

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Thank you. There's hope that more is coming!

 

[Insp.Dots]

http://www.itv.com/news/west/story/2015-10-19/becky-watts-trial-day-10/

Shauna, in a lot of ways, was more dominant. She very often told him what to do, to change things and that. The way she seemed was quite dominant, like the way she spoke to him.

I believe Nathan tried to control Shauna, and she would always get her own way and get what she wanted.
BBM: Respect to the Grandmother on her giving evidence. I think that when they visited perhaps SH was the kind of girl that was trying to impress NM's Family, so possibly said things she thought would make her look like she was actually good for NM and wanted the best for him/them.
She was probably the same with AG and as in her interview, criticized BW's failings in order to make herself look good.
As someone said further up NM & SH together were a recipe for disaster. I am not in anyway making excuses for what they have done but it does really show how family background & upbringing can have a big affect on how people behave. BOTH of them felt 'hard done by' with their respective Families and gave each other the love & adulation they craved. ALL MOO

 

[Cherwell]

It is awful isn't it?! I am assuming that BW talked to the Psychologist during her bouts of anorexia, I wonder if we will hear evidence from them. I also wonder why Nathan ended up living with his Grandmother instead of AG, perhaps there were issues with him back then. This must be so hard for AG, as a Mother of NM & Step Mum to BW she must have felt totally torn at times. Do we know if NM had any siblings or if he was on touch with his Father?

This is where Retribution may be able to give us some background. I do hope s/he is OK and will come back once recovered from the operation.

 

[Edinlass]

Was also just thinking about retribution :/ she hasn't been back since someone jumped down her throat lol

 

[ms_x_to_the_m]

What does this imply out of interest? The fact that the defence no longer wanted their witnesses to testify?

It basically means that witnesses can go home for the day. They are, presumably, to return tomorrow. The barristers have a good idea of what day they want a witness to testify. So then witnesses are not there every day.

 

[jessie]

Was also just thinking about retribution :/ she hasn't been back since someone jumped down her throat lol

She was about to go into hospital for major surgery apparently. If you are reading here Retribution - best wishes for a speedy recovery :blowkiss:

She

 

[Lady Demelza]

I don't know if anyone else feels the same but, nothing about this case is adding up to me. I seems like there is a rather large piece of the puzzle that we just aren't seeing right now. From Nathan's 'kidnap' story which just seems so entirely implausible, to Shauna saying she was oblivious to everything, to the fact that the bathroom had literally no trace of DNA to be found and yet no sheeting or surface coverings were found with the rest of the disposal paraphernalia & body to indicate how they managed such a feat? Something is off.

I hope the suspects get charged to the full extent of the law and serve their full sentence.

In the grand scheme, I guess the legal system and criminal punishment is a little lenient in the UK. There are other worrisome cases that springs to mind: James Bulger's murderers out so soon and given new IDs multiple times (allowing reoffense to occur), Yorkshire ripper is now out, etc.

This is up to the legal system, but suppose the female suspect in this case may or may not be charged. What is to stop the courts from giving her a new ID and benefit of a publication ban, similar to what had happened in other high profile cases in the past, as soon as she is released from prison or walks out the court if charges don't stick right now? I guess that is the worry. I suppose people recognize her face and people will look after themselves that way.

The killers of little James were tried as children, hence the shorter sentence. Peter Sutcliffe is still cooling his heels in Broadmoor as far as I'm aware.

 

[Lady Demelza]

Sorry Callista not sure why I have quoted you there, my phone is doing strange things!

 

[Clio]

What did he say?��

ITV Becky Trial ‏@ITVBeckyTrial · 15m15 minutes ago
The judge ordered the jury to ignore it. There are restrictions banning anyone from reporting what was said.

 

[Alyce]

I read it as being the prosecution had other witnesses lined up to testify today but the defence teams said they weren't needed. i.e. whatever the prosecution was trying to prove with these witnesses is no longer disputed by the defence teams.

That puzzles me somewhat.
Does this now mean that the Prosecution will not be able to call some witnesses who might have been able to further the case against NM or SH ?
I mean, ok, the Defence are - presumably - saying you don't need to try and prove a point by having Witness X give evidence, because we, the Defence, accept this point.
But then surely the Jury has not heard this fact, or facts, that the Prosecution wished to have made known to the Court.

 

[LBB]

I read it as being the prosecution had other witnesses lined up to testify today but the defence teams said they weren't needed. i.e. whatever the prosecution was trying to prove with these witnesses is no longer disputed by the defence teams.

That puzzles me somewhat.
Does this now mean that the Prosecution will not be able to call some witnesses who might have been able to further the case against NM or SH ?
I mean, ok, the Defence are - presumably - saying you don't need to try and prove a point by having Witness X give evidence, because we, the Defence, accept this point.
But then surely the Jury has not heard this fact, or facts, that the Prosecution wished to have made known to the Court.

It could be that whatever it is they were hoping to prove with the witness has now been proven and has become an agreed fact. This would mean that the prosecution and the defence sign to say they agree on whatever the agreed fact is. The statement will be put in the jury bundle and the prosecution no longer have to prove it as it has been accepted as fact.

 

[Alyce]

It basically means that witnesses can go home for the day. They are, presumably, to return tomorrow. The barristers have a good idea of what day they want a witness to testify. So then witnesses are not there every day.

Ah thank you. That explains it to me. I thought they had meant they would not want the witnesses at all, which I found odd.

 

[Alyce]

Thanks to everyone who has been posting updates from the trial today. Hugely appreciated.

Re the age gap and the who dominated who situation.

NM was born on January 9, 1987 and SH was born on February 12, 1994. So at the time that he was 21 she was only 14, not 15.
If I remember rightly, she spent some time in care at the age of 13, so it could be that she came out of care and almost straight away, linked up with NM.
From other stuff I read months ago, which is probably not still available, NM did talk a bit about not having the best of childhoods.
If NM was with grandparents from age 7 to 23, then at least by the time he was 15, AG was part of a family unit and bringing up two other , very young, non biological, children. Easy to see that this might cause NM to feel resentful and even jealous.

 

[eneri12]

ITV Becky Trial ‏@ITVBeckyTrial · 15m15 minutes ago
The judge ordered the jury to ignore it. There are restrictions banning anyone from reporting what was said.

I read on the UK crimes against children Facebook feed that he just screamed obscenities at the 4 in the dock.

 

[jessie]

I read on the UK crimes against children Facebook feed that he just screamed obscenities at the 4 in the dock.

Understandable.

 

[eneri12]

Understandable.

I'm quite sure he's not the only one that's felt like doing it!

 

[eneri12]

Just caught up on today's feed and going through the timeline I can't get my head round them leaving RWs body in their flat for what was it, 3 whole days? What were they going to say if someone turned up eg the police or one of the family looking for RW as I really believe by then they had their suspicions alongside the police!! I just don't get why they kept her in their house when they had so many opportunities at the start to take her elsewhere! Definitely not the brightest this pair 😖

Really felt for RWs friend today too, truly traumatic time for her. I also feel for AG today too with her mum giving evidence. What an awful situation for this whole family especially AG.