GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #11

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tortoise said:
I think if he put her in the suitcase he would not have taken her out of the boot to do it. I think it's a pretty large boot area on that car.

I wouldn't risk carrying something that could be identified as a body wrapped in a duvet in broad daylight myself. He did say he used a trolley to carry the case and he wouldn't be able to use a trolley with just a body on it. IMO.

I can't see why he would lie about using a trolley either. It shows he was struggling with the weight.
Click to expand...

In something I read yesterday he said he had to use the trolley as the suitcase split.

He told the court after his girlfriend went to sleep he went back out to the car and discovered the suitcase had split - so used a trolley to bring it into the house.
Click to expand...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/615611/Becky-Watts-killer-crime-case-trial-pretending-to-be-her
 
Tortoise said:
Something else occurred to me. Would NM have left his car on the driveway? When DG came home from work (assuming he drives as I have seen pics of a car being forensically examined on the drive) I would have thought he would expect to park on the drive, otherwise it would mean swapping cars around when NM/SH leave later that night.
Click to expand...

Another instance of where a statement from AG would be useful. Where was NM's car when she got back from hospital? Backed into the drive or on the road?
 
Tortoise said:
Thinking further about the door slam and their story of being in the kitchen together when they heard it, shows their way of thinking at the time. I tried to put myself in their shoes. If SH had said to Anjie she was in the kitchen alone, then it would have raised the possibility that SH might not think straight off that it was BW going out, she would have had to logically consider that it was BW or NM and not be certain it was 'BW in one of her moods'. If they say they are together when they heard it, as well as the invented stomping, she doesn't have to consider it was anything else (except afterwards that it could have been the wind of course ;) ).

Neither of them was smart enough to look further ahead and consider that if they were ever caught, the 'innocent' one who agreed they were together at the time would have to have been complicit in the lie about them being together.

ETA All my opinions of course - not proven yet
Click to expand...

I think one of them was smart enough at some point to realise the implications and that's why by the time SH gives her statements she talks about being alone in the kitchen and NM being in the lounge. I don't think we've seen NM's early statements to see if and when he changed to saying he was in the lounge, we just know what he originally said to his mother.
 
cottonweaver said:
Yes, that's plausible, what could it be? The discovery?
( Sorry I can only read load half a screen of posts easily, so time lag in responding and following the discussion is difficult for me again)
Click to expand...

Something struck me: why would NM/SH have Becky's cheque? It wasn't money he could use but he didn't destroy it either, which leads me to believe that something was hanging in the balance between him and BW that was intended to result in either Becky getting the cheque back, or the cheque being destroyed.

Let's assume that on the 18th Feb, for reasons unknown, NM/SH discovers the balance has swung in favour of Becky being non compliant and the cheque being destroyed. NM feels he needs to regain control with a bigger threat, but he's already played his ultimate card by threatening to kill her in the past, which led to a feeling of desperation when they went to confront her the next day.

Becky might have overheard SH and NM sharing a secret at sometime around the time she got given the check, and whatever they were talking about could have been the smoking gun that started it all.

Very presumptuous I know and just ideas!
 
onthecounter said:
Something struck me: why would NM/SH have Becky's cheque? It wasn't money he could use but he didn't destroy it either, which leads me to believe that something was hanging in the balance between him and BW that was intended to result in either Becky getting the cheque back, or the cheque being destroyed.

Let's assume that on the 18th Feb, for reasons unknown, NM/SH discovers the balance has swung in favour of Becky being non compliant and the cheque being destroyed. NM feels he needs to regain control with a bigger threat, but he's already played his ultimate card by threatening to kill her in the past, which led to a feeling of desperation when they went to confront her the next day.

Becky might have overheard SH and NM sharing a secret at sometime around the time she got given the check, and whatever they were talking about could have been the smoking gun that started it all.

Very presumptuous I know and just ideas!
Click to expand...

Hiding it is the kind of thing a jealous child might do, which fits in with how NM sometimes comes across. Just wondering what ID those cheque cashing places accept, and whether maybe he and SH planned to try and cash it
 
From CP's Sunday Express link

He said: "I put some of it in the freezer, then the other bits in the blue box.

"The stuff in the attic was still wrapped in cling film, but I think that was the saw and some of the other items used, I don't know exactly what."
Click to expand...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/615611/Becky-Watts-killer-crime-case-trial-pretending-to-be-her

Doesn't sound like there were any body parts in the loft which would make sense to me. I was having trouble believing that NM would have handed body parts to KD to put in a suitcase, even if they were wrapped in cling film and whatever else. I would have thought that he had made sure the body parts were all wrapped and packaged in box/cases ready to be picked up later before they fled to Southmead to avoid the police search.
 
cottonweaver said:
mmm - the press reports are definitely a problem.
I was starting to focus more on Bristol Post and WesternDP as they also have their own press in there combined with UK & Eire tweets.
TBH I am not finding any exhaustive and reliable which is a real shame which it comes to a critical issue such as this. There are no shorthand typists in journalism any more !?

We also know that Defence said in court, that Webb had added to her initial statement.

My doubts:
For the life of me, ( mindful that Pros is trying to get a strong conviction against SH) is it realistic they have not already discounted that NM nips back with the body by doing exhaustive CCTV checks and neighbour accounts for 11-2 on 19th?

Otherwise this nipping back is a very risky thing to do ( one might be seen) , but then so is waiting for hours with a body in a boot at the house of the vanished person! ( It was my OH who said he thought there was no way someone waits all day with the body in the boot on the drive and he has zero interest/knowledge in this or any other case LOL)

TBH none of the participants appear pretty smart when it comes to CCTV, using cash, whether in-store or roads etc etc.
Click to expand...

Definately risky. Looking at the street, it's too open, no trees or bushes on pavement to conceal NM carting in heavy luggage.

VIDEO_BECKY_WATTS_m_864496a.jpg


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00864/VIDEO_BECKY_WATTS_m_864496a.jpg

Leaving the body in the car for nearly 8 hours was risky too, but maybe, NM thought it would look suspicious leaving while AG was worried about Becky and she might raise the alarm too early, contact the police.
While waiting there NM must have been going over in his head what to do with the body. Incredibly, he decided bringing it to their home was his only option, and creating a 'kill room' like off Dexter?
 
cottonweaver said:
RSBM
Even though I can't find any ref to "it was pretty constant" besides ITV quote ( SWebb 11-2 noises) I am putting it aside in my mind now even though I think it fits with her "I had nothing to do with this" line, ie. she wouldn't want to be going moving the body, she'd want him to deal with it etc....

Going back to the "wind slamming the door" thing. I re-watched that last night whilst I was waiting for WS to re-load ( yawn) and I interpret it as her saying - I dunno if she was in a mood and thus slammed or door purposefully or I dunno if she left and the wind caught the door and made it slam as she stomped out/off.
Is this what you meant or implying something else.
Click to expand...

re SH comment about the wind causing the door to slam -

to me it is absolute proof that her story is a complete fabrication [ETA a fabrication that started when AG came home], I haven't explained myself very well on this so I will try to do so now.

She said to Anjie, she had heard BW stomping down and slamming the door. That is her justification for thinking BW left in a mood.

BUT, she also says to Anjie, that she had considered if it was the wind.

It's to do with making a judgement on what is happening as you hear it happening. For instance I hear one of my kids stomping into the kitchen and pulling a saucepan out of a cupboard making a clattering sound against the other pans in the cupboard. I assume they are doing it, I have a reason to assume it because I heard them stomping in before I heard the clattering noises. I don't then think at any stage either after the noise or during the noise that it could just be the saucepans toppling over in the cupboard and the kids have nothing to do with the making of the sound I heard.

SH is justifying to Anjie and the police why she thought it was BW leaving in a mood. She heard the moody stomping. Adding in that she thought 'was that the wind?' is just to make it seem as if she had stopped to consider at the time 'what else could I be hearing?' But you don't think 'is it something else?' if you have a sound reason for making your former judgement.

ETA - It's like me explaining to someone later on. I thought 'is that the saucepans falling over because I haven't put them away carefully?, but then I thought - no it couldn't have been because I heard the kids going in there and pulling them out of the cupboard'
 
Clio said:
Ok so if SW is correct, the argument was between 6-7pm on Wednesday 18th and the noises were "pretty constant" sometime between 11am and 2pm on Thursday 19th. I thought the prosecutions argument is that that the noises were on Friday 20th. Is this not correct?
Click to expand...

It is correct but it seems they are assuming SW got her dates wrong and that it happened like NM says it did.
 
Clio said:
From CP's Sunday Express link



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/615611/Becky-Watts-killer-crime-case-trial-pretending-to-be-her

Doesn't sound like there were any body parts in the loft which would make sense to me. I was having trouble believing that NM would have handed body parts to KD to put in a suitcase, even if they were wrapped in cling film and whatever else. I would have thought that he had made sure the body parts were all wrapped and packaged in box/cases ready to be picked up later before they fled to Southmead to avoid the police search.
Click to expand...
I don't think he handed wrapped body parts either. I think its been an error in translation or something.
 
Clio said:
They have CCTV of NM's car on the way to CH on the morning of 19th so unlikely any CCTV of him "nipping back" to CML between 11am and 12.45pm was overwritten. He could have taken a different route or more likely imo, he never left CH until later that evening when NM/SH & child went home
Click to expand...

But was it not a different route? He stopped to buy batteries on the way to Becky's the day of the murder. Perhaps we need to map out the two trips to see if the route would likely have been the same both ways.
 
onthecounter said:
I'm stuck on motive, I really am. I can't see the wood for the trees. Always truth in amongst their lies: The cheque in the loft...protection of AW...from what?...sexual perversion...money...obsession...

I can't see the wood for the trees. What was the smoking gun that caused the argument on the 18th?
Click to expand...

I'm lost. Who's AW?
 
Alyce said:
So if there was no cooker/microwave in the bathroom on the 24th, and they were put there later ( or put back in there later ) then all that rubbish on the floor, to the right of the cooker/microwave in the photo, must have accumulated since the 24th ?
Could they really add that much cr*p to the room in just 3 days ( being as they were at SHs mother's most of the time ) or has that additional stuff been placed ( or rather thrown ) into the bathroom, to add as much mess as possible ?
Click to expand...

I think it's started somewhere in the doc's. That in order for the photos to be taken. The ones that were shown in Court. The Police say that 'while it's been made to look like the actual crime scene photos. Because items were moved in the search if the household. That not all the items were placed back in their original setting. But was done to replicate as much as possible the scenes of crime as per first examination'
 
Clio said:
BIB Confused now. So are you saying he didn't risk this at CH? And that the body was put in the suitcase at CH because he wouldn't risk carrying it in broad daylight, even if it was wrapped in a duvet?
Click to expand...

not sure which bit is confusing? just to make it clearer, I think he wouldn't carry a body wrapped in a duvet from the car into the house in daylight. I think he would have put Becky in the case while still in the boot, and then move the case in to the house.
 
edgedweller said:
Anjie Watts? (although her name is Galsworthy, the same as BW's dad, DG). Watts is Becky's mum's name.
Click to expand...

Ah, well there we have another argument for using names rather than initials :winkaway:
 
ColourPurple said:
I think one of them was smart enough at some point to realise the implications and that's why by the time SH gives her statements she talks about being alone in the kitchen and NM being in the lounge. I don't think we've seen NM's early statements to see if and when he changed to saying he was in the lounge, we just know what he originally said to his mother.
Click to expand...

yes, when NM has told SH don't worry - if we get caught I will take the rap for this - you know nothing about it. after the police have been in on 24th, before interview on 26th.
 
Clio said:
From CP's Sunday Express link



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/615611/Becky-Watts-killer-crime-case-trial-pretending-to-be-her

Doesn't sound like there were any body parts in the loft which would make sense to me. I was having trouble believing that NM would have handed body parts to KD to put in a suitcase, even if they were wrapped in cling film and whatever else. I would have thought that he had made sure the body parts were all wrapped and packaged in box/cases ready to be picked up later before they fled to Southmead to avoid the police search.
Click to expand...

but wasn't there something about one of them describing the packages to someone else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 78 more.
Total: 2,792 (members: 79, guests: 2,713)

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
2,713
Total visitors
2,792
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,529
Messages
17,953,954
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top