Haven't commented on this case before , but I've been following it since Becky went missing (I'm from England, although not the Bristol area). It's funny because I read Websleuths pretty much daily but usually don't post because I have so many things going around my head and don't know how to articulate them!
Anyway, not sure how to word this but I find it interesting how much of the discussion (in general, not here) around this case focuses on SH and her guilt/innocence. It reminds me of that poem Carol Duffy wrote about Myra Hindley, it says something about how Ian Brady was the Devil but she was the 'Devil's wife' who stuck by him and therefore by society's standards that automatically made her worse. I dunno, I think it's somewhat easy to underestimate the immense power that one person can hold over another, especially when it comes to the power dynamics that already inherently exist in a relationship between a woman and a man. Not saying that this makes SH innocent, of course, but I personally would be really surprised if it turned out that SH was the manipulator in this situation, because what we know of their relationship just doesn't seem to support that theory (in my opinion, anyway). SH met NM when she was 14 and he was 21 - I mean, even if you are an extremely mature 14 yr old you are still effectively a child, even if your behaviours don't always seem to represent that.
I think also, manipulation and 'puppeteering' (for want of a better word!) in relationships isn't always obvious, or violent (althought obviously NM was allegedly violent to SH at times), especially at the beginning, and seven years is such a long time to be with someone and for that person to subtly groom you and manipulate you. And the person doesn't even have to be intelligent in order to do this, they just have to be manipulative and sure of what they want. Even 21, I dunno, to me it still seems so young, and the seven years between 14 and 21 are really important in terms of development etc. I think it's entirely possible than NM manipulated and 'groomed' Shauna in ways that he might even have been unaware of, because they were so inherently inbuilt into his personality, in those years. She said in the interviews that she had no longer had any friends and family, that Nathan was all she had and without him she would have nothing.
Personally, I am leaning towards thinking I that their relationship was all-encompassing and he controlled it, and all she had was him and her child. Yes, she seemed to have friends, but I think there's a difference between having casual friends/acquantainces and people you can actually trust and rely on who become like a family to you - I think in this regard, she only had Nathan. I also think it's possible that she did know that what was going on, re: the bathroom and the bleach etc, and had come to some conclusions, but was so terrified of the implications of finding out that the only person she really has in her life and has spent seven years in an intense, all-encompassing relationship with is not the person she thought he was, that she fooled herself. It's really incredible how much someone can delude/fool themselves when what could potentially be lost is so important.
Despite all of that ^ haha, I'm still not sure what I actually think of this case - does anyone else feel the same?! I just find it really interesting that a lot of discussions/media outlets/etc seem to be approaching it from the POV that SH is guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way around.
