GUILTY UK - Rikki Neave, 6, murdered, Peterborough, 28 Nov 1994 *Arrest*
- Thread starter missacorah
- Start date
the defence have closed their case. I honestly think the Prosecution should have called back a couple of witnesses to clarify things although of course things have probably been said that we dont know ie what time did he get back the day of disappearance and did he go out that night? also...the teacher i think it was said two days after the disappearance....he went back to school for the first whole day in months...was he at school at all the previous day? specifically in the morning?
Central Criminal Court 1 T20207051
James Lewis Watson
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:42
Trial (Part Heard) - Defence JAMES LEWIS WATSON Case Closed - 10:58
Trial (Part Heard) - Prosecution Closing Speech - 11:07
Central Criminal Court 1 T20207051
James Lewis Watson
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:42
Trial (Part Heard) - Defence JAMES LEWIS WATSON Case Closed - 10:58
Trial (Part Heard) - Prosecution Closing Speech - 11:07
Ugh I just worry after all this time if the Prosecution have done enough to prove the case. I honestly am not sure that they have 
The Prosecution spent half the case trashing Ruth. The witness from yesterday who said he saw Rikki that night I think can be discounted but the big issue is the cop who testified that he went to that area the night of the day he was killed and he wasnt there. For me for a long time I thought he was guilty because of the alleged phone call to his mum days beforehand about the murdered toddler but then the sister seemed to discount that...then again the same sister discounted that the dad was a cop at least in James life time which even the headlines have said Watsons dad was a serving cop. Yes I believe he probably did it but its the beyond all reasonable doubt bit for me thats an issue based on what we have read at least.
The Prosecution spent half the case trashing Ruth. The witness from yesterday who said he saw Rikki that night I think can be discounted but the big issue is the cop who testified that he went to that area the night of the day he was killed and he wasnt there. For me for a long time I thought he was guilty because of the alleged phone call to his mum days beforehand about the murdered toddler but then the sister seemed to discount that...then again the same sister discounted that the dad was a cop at least in James life time which even the headlines have said Watsons dad was a serving cop. Yes I believe he probably did it but its the beyond all reasonable doubt bit for me thats an issue based on what we have read at least.SuperStarSleuth
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2021
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 160
Tbh I'm sure his mum wouldn't have told his sister something like that.. I'm feeling the same don't think he'll get found guilty with beyond reasonable doubt.. I can't even say I believe it was him.. he's admitted all other crimes with a reason for it and also he's in prison for life now anyway so why not admit it??
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2021
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 166
I live just two streets away from here .
The word on the street back then was that it was mum who did it , wrapped him in a carpet , and pushed him in a pushchair and left his body .
she has been cleared now though .
I’m the same age as the man on trial .
The word on the street back then was that it was mum who did it , wrapped him in a carpet , and pushed him in a pushchair and left his body .
she has been cleared now though .
I’m the same age as the man on trial .
to be honest I pretty much agree ...I still have doubts its him and what he said about always admitting things to the police confused me too. If thats the truth why not now? The summing up today didnt make sense. He supposedly laid the body out in the way he did the bird..I have no idea how you would even lay a bird out in that shape. I am confused why is he in prison for life now lol? I have seen a photo when he was younger and he wasnt so big himself. One thing I was wondering if found guilty would he get a child sentence or adult? They said today about having the sexual interest in a small children...but bearing in mind that Ruth had previously been charged I assume there was no indications that anything untoward had happened and its hard to believe Nat Carey missed it...the summing up is about as bad as the case was imo.
I was thinking she could have asked the daughter if she had heard anything about a dead child near there.
Getting away from Ruth before we get into trouble....
I know they claimed he was put into a carpet and taken over there in a pushchair and IF the cop is right....that he wasnt there that night something like a pram or shopping trolley would make sense although the police seem to believe he was killed over there but then where was he that night? Either the cop is wrong...that Rikki was there and he didnt see him or he was elsewhere and taken back the next day I guess which was risky. I also wonder if the cop was mistaken about looking in that area or didnt really even go there that night because for me that blows the case apart
SuperStarSleuth
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2021
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 160
He will be in prison for life as he was on life license for previous conviction and broke the conditions by going abroad.. And as for the policeman I believe that. <modsnip>
Last edited by a moderator:
this is kind of crap tbh. The case has been in court for months now and you would have thought way before this that the police would know this was going to be an issue. If he wasnt at school the following morning its still possible he could have put Rikkis body then but with people around? surely that would been to risky and then where was Rikki all night? Its like a policeman has blown the case wide apart for the Prosecution...ugh
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing I have trouble understanding is the Prosecution telling the Jury to disregard what Pc McNeil ( that was) said about Rikki definetly not being there that night. Its the first time I have heard CPS basically say to ignore a Policemans evidence and this Policeman in particular had been awarded a bravery medal along with another local policeman for running into a burning house to save people. Rikki was six years old. He lived opposite the waste area. Surely it would be logical that night when he was missing that people would have gone over there to see if he was over there? to check out the area? and no one saw him there. Whatever anyone feels about James Watson and there is no doubt the boy had problems this just sounds wrong unless he went back next morning instead of going to school but by then I imagine there would have been a lot of searching going on so...
SuperStarSleuth
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2021
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 160
I think they have time of death wrong! <modsnip> The biggest mistake of this case
Last edited by a moderator:
the thing is then if he was alive that night and James was at March and IF he was at school the next day that pretty much clears James of being involved. The Coroner though to be honest is or was the best one in this area he may have retired by now. There just seems so much wrong with this case. I have wanted justice for Rikki and his family since it happened but this just feels wrong somehow. Prosecution are basically saying well if the evidence doesnt support our case ignore it but thats just wrong. But if all these people saw him why didnt they go to Watsons defence and tell them?
I suppose the other thing is if he was alive that night where did he sleep that night?
Last edited:
SuperStarSleuth
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2021
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 160
3 of them were in court Monday to say so but wasn't reported.. they took stand same day as policeman did. The coroner went on time due to weatabix being in stomach still but someone else could have fed him that later in the evening. Like the defense said this trial has raised more questions than answers.. bloody mental
to be honest thats a pretty good point about the weetabix could have been fed to him later. IMO he has a good Barrister...way better than the Prosecution is at least
what the heck is going on now?
Details:Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 09:46
Trial (Part Heard) - Case released until 12:00 - 10:12
Case released until [time] The judge has released the case until the specified time later in the day, at which point another judge may reside.
Details:Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 09:46
Trial (Part Heard) - Case released until 12:00 - 10:12
Case released until [time] The judge has released the case until the specified time later in the day, at which point another judge may reside.
Online statistics
- Members online
- 109
- Guests online
- 1,368
- Total visitors
- 1,477