Well my answer to each of them questions is YES absolutely on every account....
So patronising questioning the jury.
The obvious inference is that 16 year olds are "legal".
Yes I don't think it's putting any question in their mind.
The irony is that the kidnap plan part could be totally made up, yet could end up being what convicts NM of murder instead of manslaughter. I think there'd be more chance of getting a manslaughter conviction if the story was something like Becky being mouthy and NM losing his temper and snapping, but the kidnap story adds a premeditated angle to the story and makes him more likely to be convicted of murder.
yes, so they dwelt on the legality of part of their plan. cough cough.
Siobhan Robbins ‏@SiobhanRobbins 59s60 seconds ago
AL: she relied on NM for everything.He was not straightforward, would on occasion assault her
Siobhan Robbins ‏@SiobhanRobbins 2m2 minutes ago
AL says SH-troubled upbringing, some evidence that NM didn't treat her well,her self respect wasn't high.SH became completely reliant on him
ITV Becky Trial ‏@ITVBeckyTrial 50s50 seconds ago
SH was able to send "highly inappropriate texts to excite or to please" NM - to appeal to his "toilet humour" #beckywatts
Must admit, that isn't how I've always understood 'toilet humour' to be defined.
Absolutely, IIRC he wrote "ish" in one of the texts ie. "16 ish LOL"
Unfortunately I don't remember the Pros highlighting what we all spotted on that? IIRC
ITV Becky Trial ‏@ITVBeckyTrial 50s50 seconds ago
SH was able to send "highly inappropriate texts to excite or to please" NM - to appeal to his "toilet humour" #beckywatts