GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #8

[Gigi-G]

Ahh ty Tortoise.
Also something else that bothers me. I'm struggling to grasp whether the crime was pre-meditated. Or just bungled as they went along. As in the preparation of it.
We know NM took the kidnap kit with them in the car. Which would perceive as pre-meditated. Using the tin returning as a way of gaining access to his mother's house.
Whether SH was aware. I am sure she was. But she had a child to keep occupied.
Now here's where I'm lost... Okay a bungled kidnap. Mishap and turns into the death of BW. Now so far NM keeps with his plan of putting BW into the bag with duvet etc.
This now becomes the game changer. Did NM panic now BW was dead. And they had to revise the scheme of things.
But surely it's easier to given the area around Bristol. River Severn being tidal. Even just dispose of the body simply. What drives a person to the point they consider to add post mortem injuries and removal of said tampon. To finally cutting up of a human body.... his step sister of all things. What kind of mind/person would be driven to all that extra work? . Sorry if it's a bit graphical. I just don't get the point of dismemberment to just hiding a body as per a whole body.. 😓

 

[KatieLH]

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.

 

[Wallace]

Hi KatieLH

I think people might have cut SH some slack if she had admitted some sort of part in this, however minor. Her story that she was blissfully unaware of everything quite simply doesn't stack up.

Many people have speculated that NM manipulated and controlled SH due to the age gap at the beginning of their relationship. Few seem to be considering that SH could have manipulated NM even at that young age. She may have had the incentive in wanting to get away from her family. NM doesn't come across as the sharpest of people (being kind here). She wouldn't be the first young girl that found it easy to twist an older man around her finger.

I believe she was up to her neck in this, that she may even have pushed NM into it. From the messages that have been shared she comes across as being as interested in their sick fantasies as he was. In many cases she appears to be instigating their fantasy conversations.

 

[KatieLH]

Hi KatieLH

I think people might have cut SH some slack if she had admitted some sort of part in this, however minor. Her story that she was blissfully unaware of everything quite simply doesn't stack up.

Many people have speculated that NM manipulated and controlled SH due to the age gap at the beginning of their relationship. Few seem to be considering that SH could have manipulated NM even at that young age. She may have had the incentive in wanting to get away from her family. NM doesn't come across as the sharpest of people (being kind here). She wouldn't be the first young girl that found it easy to twist an older man around her finger.

I believe she was up to her neck in this, that she may even have pushed NM into it. From the messages that have been shared she comes across as being as interested in their sick fantasies as he was. In many cases she appears to be instigating their fantasy conversations.

I definitely agree with you that he doesn't come across as the sharpest of people! Haha. I think the reason this case is so difficult is because actually, we don't have that much information at all about their relationship once you get past when they met and how long they've been together. So either side could be totally right - the evidence that we've seen so far could easily show that either one of them is the manipulator, which makes it hard to actually come to a set conclusion (for me, anyway). Then this in turn influences the opinions we have of RW's murder, the events that led to it, and the level of culpability that SH and NM should each hold. I hope that we get to hear more about the context of their relationship, but sadly I don't think that'll be the case.

 

[KatieLH]

And it's funny, because I feel like I've seen quite a lot of reports/opinions on SH potentially manipulating NM/being a kind of she-devil (for want of a better phrase) - I'll see if I kind find any links!

 

[Beesknees]

Does an adult have any sort of leniency in a trial depending on being manipulated or not? In my opinion it doesn't matter who manipulated who in the relation of these two. The importante is they both are adults, they both constituted a family, have a child and could work. He, NM was even considered a bright pupil by someone who gave him formation in the TA. None of their aquaintances or neighbors gave any evidence of them not being normal adults so far. I think they were both in this. It is difficult for me to even discuss SH being aware or not as for me there are no doubts in relation to it. Each and everything 'cries' that she not only had to know but also participated. Impossible not to. As partners in life and in tis case in crime too. It is like the funny saying - 'sounds like a duck, flies like a duck and seems like a duck . it's a duck. The same is the colaboration of SH in this crime.

We have to do a lot of exercise to show that she wasn't aware. We must think she was blind, deaf and completely handicaped or stupid not to know anything. Mrs Hoare surely knew alright what was going on and had part in it. My doubt, my big doubt is who killed Becky.

At the end I think both killed her. One killed and the other restrained her. Even if we may never know who really killed her they both are guilty the same in my eyes and they both had to be in jail for life without any kind of mitigation.

 

[KatieLH]

BeesKnees, I guess who manipulated who doesn't matter in regards to the trial and leniency afforded, but personally it is so interesting and important to me. I'm not really sure how to word it except so many things go into creating the 'perfect storm' (god, I am terrible w/ analogies tonight!) of a person or two people killing another person, and the context of SH and NM'S relationship and the boundaries of it and whether any manipulation was involved or not is a huge part of who SH and NM are, and potentially a huge part of why the crime was committed in the first place. Everything about this case leads back to the two of them, obviously, and their relationship, which is why I am so intrigued by it. The case is now in the trial stage so if this kind of speculation/discussion re: their relationship that isn't directly trial-related isn't wanted then let me know and I'll make my postings more relevant I guess I just find the psychology behind it and the many different opinions people have of their relationship to be really interesting, as they all have a direct impact on the motive behind the crime and how it was actually committed.

 

[KatieLH]

I also find it important bc imo (and it's probably an unpopular one!) I don't actually think the prosecution has much to go on to prove SH guilty. As I said before, I lean towards her being manipulated by NM but I'm still unsure of what actually happened to cause RW's death and who was involved. Me thinking that SH was manipulated by NW does NOT mean that I think she's innocent btw - it's more of an attempt to understand her claim that she's not involved & did not know anything about NM killing RW, or the aftermath, if that makes sense!

Also (sorry to go on), BeeKnees, I don't think one would have to believe that Shauna was deaf, blind, etc to not know what was going on - it sounds weird but I think that if someone is so deeply involved with another person in a way that is all-consuming and takes over their life (as SH proclaims, NM was all she had) then actually it is pretty amazing how far they/their brain can fool themselves as to what that person is capable of. Denial/repression can be so strong in events that seem unbelievable/traumatic, it's amazing. Of course, it's up to you to decide how much you believe that, though!

 

[Beesknees]

I understand what you say, KatieLH.

I despise so much these two beings that it is as if I refuse to allow them to make me think of their dinamics more than what can bring some light for the case/murder. I tend to be very pragmatic because I think it is not difficult to have somehow a picture, an idea of all the mess these two criated.

For me they both killed her. Was it for jealousy, dislike, sexual motives, hate or whatever else I can't find any detail to make their actions less monstrous.

From their behaviour known after the crime, from their lies, their inconsistences and also from their mobile messages we can have an idea of their twisted minds.

Rebecca Watts was killed in an awful way. They showed so much contempt for her life and also so much disdain and dishonor for her body after death. All this for nothing and because of nothing.

Becky simply existed and was much like any other girls her age. Was at her home, quiet in her room where she surely felt safe and two persons from her family entered there to bring harm to her, eventually having in mind taking her life. I believe she would have lost her life anyway. Perhaps not at her home as it was, but her fate was drawn.

As for the prossecution, I too am affraid they have nothing more relevant to frame her than what we heard so far. It is a shame as I believe she is as involved as him in this. Anyway, we still have two or three weeks more of trial. Let's see what will it still bring.

 

[mrazda71]

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.

Hi KatieLH and Welcome ...

From me, an especially big welcome as until reading your post I've felt like I am the only person who is even considering the prospect that Shauna is innocent until PROVEN guilty and for me, I haven't had definitive proof that she's guilty of anything yet.

That's not to say that I think conclusively that she's completely innocent and if in the coming weeks we hear of evidence from court that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Shauna was involved then, my opinion will change ...
We are only hearing the edited sound bites of days worth of interviews, snippets of quotes from the courtroom and not the full picture.

Like you, my curiosity is in the intricacies of their relationship ...

I completely agree, 14, however mature IS a child and there's NO way any of my 3 daughters at 14 would've been allowed to begin a relationship with a 21 year old!! But of course, from what we do know, I don't think Shauna had a great upbringing ... 14! *I'm shaking my head at this*
Agreeing with you again - 21 is still SO young! and such formative years in-between where the not only are you developing physically but your brain too ... I'm just going to stop now and say I agree with everything you've said

 

[Bethan]

"At the end I think both killed her. One killed and the other restrained her. Even if we may never know who really killed her they both are guilty the same in my eyes and they both had to be in jail for life without any kind of mitigation".[/QUOTE]



AGREED Beesknees!

I can visualise a scenario with both of them trying to subdue the struggling victim. One perpetrator with hands round her neck, while the other covered her mouth/nose to keep her quiet.

This would explain why NM claims to have strangled Becky, yet COD was suffocation.

Also, why would they need TWO stun guns unless TWO people were involved, at least, in a planned abduction?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Wallace]

Also, why would they need TWO stun guns unless TWO people were involved, at least, in a planned abduction?

Exactly

 

[mrazda71]

Exactly

Isn't that just opinion and circumstantial not evidential?

 

[Wallace]

Isn't that just opinion and circumstantial not evidential?

Yes it's an opinion.

Yes it's circumstantial.

Both of which can be presented as evidence.

Perhaps it doesn't carry the same weight as forensics or CCTV etc but it's still evidence.

 

[mrazda71]

Yes it's an opinion.

Yes it's circumstantial.

Both of which can be presented as evidence.

Perhaps it doesn't carry the same weight as forensics or CCTV etc but it's still evidence.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand what, of the little we've heard makes you so convinced of that :/

 

[Cherwell]

We are only hearing the edited sound bites of days worth of interviews, snippets of quotes from the courtroom and not the full picture.

I've bolded this because this is a very important point that we should all keep in mind.

 

[onthecounter]

I don't think the full details of the threesome they engaged in were reported on were they? I wonder if it is known to the court whether SH interacted in a sexual sense with the other female? I know it was reported that SH got annoyed when the female kissed NM, if so, does that mean that there was no sexual contact between NM and the 3rd person?

The day Becky was killed -

I have been mulling over another detail of that day. SH said that Anjie started to worry (about 3pm?) about Becky not answering her phone to her or her friends, and called Darren. He said he would call the police and come home early. I think she said he arrived home about 4:30pm. In between that phone call and Darren arriving home SH made a search about how soon you can report a minor missing.

Darren phoned the police when he got home, regardless of the information SH had gleaned from her internet search.

My observations are that while it could be a totally innocent and normal thing to search up, it could also mean that she was hoping to delay them from reporting Becky missing. I can imagine a certain amount of panic ensuing at that point for the killer(s) with Becky's body being right outside the house in the boot of the car. ~Maybe the police could put a trace on Becky's phone and find out it had never left the location?

Anyway, in SH first interview (pre-arrest) I pick up on a nervousness when she recounts that she made this search, a quick glance at the eyes of the police officer to see how this is being perceived by him and a shifting in her seat.

Just a point reading all your posts. RW's boyfriend called round (about 5 pm - ish) and SH answered the door to him.

He is looking for Becky.

SH then asks Anjie if Becky is home?

NM and SH have been there all day, apparently hearing Becky leave the house (I know by this time poor Becky's body is in their boot) - but if it was all simple and they had heard Becky leave, they would have been aware if she'd returned surely??

Not much, but another tiny detail that doesn't tie up with SH evidence of total innocence?


eta = I probably haven't made this very clear. Just saying that if SH says she heard RW leave the house (or thought she did) wouldn't she have been aware if Becky returned? So why pretend she didn't know if Becky was then home. Hope that's clearer !

That's been one of the biggest puzzles to me all along. Why on earth would you take a body into your house, when you have a car and water and woodland nearby.

I dont believe NM thought Becky was still alive when he put her into the boot. If he did, then I'm sure he and SH would have gone straight home, to carry out the remainder of their plan with her.

OH!!!! I feel like a huge penny has dropped!
One of the things that I thought did make Shauna look guilty of something was her searching 'Do you want to hide a body' and though I thought that was an odd search term instead of 'how to hide a body' you've just enlightened me! Thanks ... and I agree with you, I think that particular search is probably irrelevant and just an unfortunate coincidence.

I mentioned this frozen parody way back before it was revealed in court but no one responded to my post... Just sayin'

 

[skibaboo]

Just a thought. Did they bring in Cadaver dog's at all? I'm assuming they brought search dogs in when the LE were doing searches of different areas?
Did those Cadaver dogs enter AG & DG'S home? Or any of the other homes? BW'S mother. SH & NM. NM'S Grandmother's?
I'm still not convinced the dismemberment of BW happened at CML.

I had a vague recollection of dogs at Crown Hill (Becky's/DG's/AG's home) I remember the discussion about what type of dog they were, I don't think we found out. I went and looked at The Case Map, I had added several images and links. I found this A lot of photos at link, including number 53 which shows a handler and dog at Crown Hill. Is it a cadaver dog?

 

[Wallace]

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand what, of the little we've heard makes you so convinced of that :/

I didn't think you were being difficult

Just engaging in healthy debate.

What makes me convinced that SH is up to her neck in this?

1. The CPS adding the murder charge to the list of crimes SH is accused of. They already had a very strong case against NM, they didn't need to charge her. They chose to add that charge at a later date. Therefore they believe they have enough to back up that charge.

2. Quite frankly her story is totally unbelievable. It is impossible to believe that she was blissfully unaware of this entire mess. I believe that the shopping trip and her sudden contact with estranged family show that she had some knowledge. Once you start to believe she had some knowledge...........

3. The messaging between SH and NM is evidence of their escalating fantasies of kidnapping a young girl. The messaging is not being driven exclusively by NM with SH appearing to go along with it. The conversations that have been presented show both SH and NM winding each other up about it. SH has been shown to have started some of those conversations.

4. Out of the two of them, SH comes across as colder and more calculating. I'm not placing the entire blame for this on her, I just think that she had an equal role at the bare minimum.

 

[mrazda71]

4. Out of the two of them, SH comes across as colder and more calculating. I'm not placing the entire blame for this on her, I just think that she had an equal role at the bare minimum.

I don't think she particularly came across as cold and calculating in the videos we've seen but I'd very much like to see video interview from her after being arrested on suspicion of kidnap and then murder.