GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #4

[Wallace]

I simply can't wrap my mind around it.

So do you mean that one or more of the other four charged MAY have carried out the actual dismemberment?

Intending to assist a defendant with the disposal of body parts>that's one thing. Actual dismemberment, quite another.

I haven't got a clue who did it.

 

[MamaJoJo]

I simply can't wrap my mind around it.

So do you mean that one or more of the other four charged MAY have carried out the actual dismemberment?

Intending to assist a defendant with the disposal of body parts>that's one thing. Actual dismemberment, quite another.

That's what I was asking up thread. The charge could mean a variety of things, as far as I can tell. From the simple (dropping the car in another neighborhood, for example) to the extreme (dismembering Becky, possibly). The thread had gotten so tied up in talking about bags filled with parts and the four defendants role in accepting them from NM that it seemed we might be missing other possibilities.

For all we know, the four defendants only sent the texts to Becky's boyfriend and then disposed of the laptop and phone. All never knowing that NM actually dismembered her.

I just think the charge leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[Beesknees]

For all we know, the four defendants only sent the texts to Becky's boyfriend and then disposed of the laptop and phone. All never knowing that NM actually dismembered her.

WHAT''' You are saying this as a fact or I lost the sense of what you said for a bad translation'''' - can't do the interrogation sign -

 

[Bluey]

That's what I was asking up thread. The charge could mean a variety of things, as far as I can tell. From the simple (dropping the car in another neighborhood, for example) to the extreme (dismembering Becky, possibly). The thread had gotten so tied up in talking about bags filled with parts and the four defendants role in accepting them from NM that it seemed we might be missing other possibilities.

For all we know, the four defendants only sent the texts to Becky's boyfriend and then disposed of the laptop and phone. All never knowing that NM actually dismembered her.

I just think the charge leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

I agree the charge could cover a range from dismembering a body to disposing of evidence such as a phone.

However, the particular charge was

The charge in full said: "Between 22 February and 3 March in the city of Bristol, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, did an act, namely assist in the disposal and concealment of the body parts of Rebecca Watts, with the intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of Nathan Matthews who had committed the offence of murder, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence, or for another offence which carries a term of imprisonment of five years or more." From here http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/becky-watts-four-court-charged-5286600

So in this particular case, I don't think this does refer to something like disposing of a laptop, this is about Becky's body as I see it.

 

[epiphany]

I agree the charge could cover a range from dismembering a body to disposing of evidence such as a phone.

However, the particular charge was

The charge in full said: "Between 22 February and 3 March in the city of Bristol, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, did an act, namely assist in the disposal and concealment of the body parts of Rebecca Watts, with the intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of Nathan Matthews who had committed the offence of murder, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence, or for another offence which carries a term of imprisonment of five years or more." From here http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/becky-watts-four-court-charged-5286600

So in this particular case, I don't think this does refer to something like disposing of a laptop, this is about Becky's body as I see it.

Respectfully BBM ^^

And in this particular case, the specific charge would Not include the actual ACT of dismemberment? Is that accurate?

 

[MamaJoJo]

Ah, yes! Thanks for the wording of the actual charge again. The "disposal and concealment" part had slipped my mind. The wording still opens the possibility of the four being present when NM dismembered her. Or, present before or when he placed her in whatever containers he did.

And, for the record, I was only using the disposal of the laptop and phone as a less egregious act on the scale. I agree that it's about Becky's body.

 

[Bluey]

Respectfully BBM ^^

And in this particular case, the specific charge would Not include the actual ACT of dismemberment? Is that accurate?

I'm on the fence about that tbh. Whilst there is no reference to any act of dismemberment, that could possibly be contained within 'disposal and concealment'.

I lean towards it not being part of the charge, but also think it could be.

 

[Wallace]

I'm on the fence about that tbh. Whilst there is no reference to any act of dismemberment, that could possibly be contained within 'disposal and concealment'.

I lean towards it not being part of the charge, but also think it could be.

That's definitely got both sides of the fence covered [emoji3]

 

[Bluey]

Actually reading the charge again.... 'namely assist in the disposal and concealment of the body parts of Rebecca Watts' that suggests to me that Becky's body was already in parts when the disposal and concealment is alleged to have taken place.

I think the word 'parts' would be missing if this charge covered dismemberment.

The charge being instead of disposal and concealment of the body....

So now I think Becky had been dismembered before any of these 4 were involved. It was her body parts by that point.

Poor Becky xxxxx

 

[MamaJoJo]

For all we know, the four defendants only sent the texts to Becky's boyfriend and then disposed of the laptop and phone. All never knowing that NM actually dismembered her.

WHAT''' You are saying this as a fact or I lost the sense of what you said for a bad translation'''' - can't do the interrogation sign -

No, I was not saying this as fact. I was trying to say that the charge of Assisting the Offender can include a multitude of offenses of varying severity.

Bluey has since re-posted the actual wording of the specific charge and I now realize there was absolutely no reason for me to be making that specific argument. :facepalm:

 

[mrazda71]

Just an idea but ... if we assume that SH did NOT know that NM had murdered, dismembered and concealed BW then I can only think of a couple of scenarios 1, that NM has cracked and told police what he'd done and where she was and who had helped him. Or 2, that the twins younger brother (who was the only one to be released without charge) had not been involved but had discovered or had heard his brothers talking etc and it was him that informed police. He might have done so anonymously initially, and upon arrest told police it was him who contacted them.

 

[Alyce]

I'm not sure. When the police first said they had found body parts I assumed not, but don't have any real reason for assuming that at the time.
When I thought about it, I decided they probably had found all of her, just based on there not being reports in the media of ongoing searches.
I've seen that there has been ongoing forensic type work at the particular addresses, but not seen any mention at all of other searches.
I'm assuming police would continue to try to find all of her, if it was the case they hadn't recovered all of her.

When the police stated they had found body parts, I always thought they meant they had found the whole body, only that it was, sadly, in parts, not as a whole.
No idea why I thought that.
But, I also think they would not have allowed a personal identification of BW if they only had parts of her body.

 

[Alyce]

I think they knew exactly what they had. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that NM called and asked his "mates" for help. I think the lot of them decided where and how to conceal the body parts, helped load them in a vehicle and/or vehicles and then "stashed" the body parts until the "heat" was off. Somewhere along the line, somebody saw or heard something and called LE. I would also wager a guess that SH was a part of the conversation as this bunch tried to figure out what to do.

I'm guessing at this point and my theory is strictly MOO.

The one thing that I am of certain of is that a beautiful young girl is gone at the hands of a cruel and sadistic murderer. She is never coming back and her family and friends are heartbroken beyond belief. This is the one reality and the one thing we can be certain of.

BIB very possibly - and, it may be that the suggestion re dismemberment came from one of the 4 ?

 

[Alyce]

All of them were held in custody for a very extended period of time. We can't know for certain but it's likely that they all no commented their way through every interview question. IF they did that it suggests that some time was spent talking about what they would do if caught. It would be very hard for 7 people to stick to the same story so my guess is that they took the fool proof option of saying nothing.

Whilst I dont disagree with this, in fact I can quite believe there was 96 hours ( or thereabouts ) of no comment responses ...then I do wonder how, at the same time, JP was vehemently denying any involvement. ( as stated by her solicitor ).

 

[bessie]

When the police stated they had found body parts, I always thought they meant they had found the whole body, only that it was, sadly, in parts, not as a whole.
No idea why I thought that.
But, I also think they would not have allowed a personal identification of BW if they only had parts of her body.

Many murder victims, and some accident victims for that matter, are ID'd from partial remains through DNA testing. Waiting to recover all remains before making an ID would have been cruel to her loved ones who were waiting for an answer. I hope that is not the case with Becky. It makes an unbelievably horrific situation even worse for the family.

 

[Alyce]

Regarding the emboldened above: Gosh, was this really so? I thought it was easy for the LE to trace ownership of vehicles.
Also, as an aside, I had assumed that the reason LE wanted the previous owners to contact them (apart from the obvious DNA elimination thing) was so that any significant marks in the vehicle might be explained. If, for example, there were scratch/kick marks within the vehicle, then the previous owners might explain this happened during their ownership. Also, if perhaps cadaverine was sniffed by the dogs in the car, then the LE would need to eliminate a person having expired in the vehicle by questioning previous owners. Just some of my own thoughts of the matter.

I also did not have the impression that the police were struggling to find owners - either past or present. We know from records ( thank you Skibaboo ! ) that the car had had only 2 previous owners before the current one ( which may or may not have been NM ), so I thought their reason for asking the 2 previous owners to come forward ( apart from the ones you have listed Jigzy re DNA, marks on car etc ) was because they had not been easily contactable ( had moved from the address that was registered with the DVLA perhaps ).
Or, it may have been to spread the net a bit wider and see if anyone else ( not an owner ) had any good knowledge re the car.
eg: perhaps they might have had other people come forward who had some knowledge of the history of the car, accidents, work done on it etc ...

This point re the car made me think of something else. We know that the car was placed in Wilton Close by at least Monday February 23 ( possibly earlier ). Assuming that NM drove it there, he would then likely need a lift back to his home.
So if - and it is only an IF - one of the other 4 had been the person who provided the lift back home, without knowing the real reason - would this not then raise another red flag to them when NM was arrested several days later ?

 

[Clio]

Just an idea but ... if we assume that SH did NOT know that NM had murdered, dismembered and concealed BW

Even if she did know, the police do not seem to have enough evidence to charge her with such so in my mind she cannot have been the informant

<snip>NM has cracked and told police what he'd done and where she was and who had helped him.

Possible I suppose. In which case I expect he will plead guilty and there will be no trial for him. Or one of the other 4 charged couldn't take it any more and called the police.

<snip>that the twins younger brother (who was the only one to be released without charge) had not been involved but had discovered or had heard his brothers talking etc and it was him that informed police. He might have done so anonymously initially, and upon arrest told police it was him who contacted them.

Very possible. Someone close to the D family, maybe suspected something, perhaps after watching Crimewatch decided to investigate further and found something he wasn't meant to?

All of the above seem a lot more likely than a "stranger" finding something imho. I know that BW's gran said a stranger saw what was in the garden and tipped off the police but would the police necessarily have told the family where they got the info from?

 

[onthecounter]

Why was RW's body not folded and carried out in sheets/ bags to the car and then put in to a large suitcase shortly thereafter? This is more of a typical scenario.

It is only when I consider the possibility that rigor mortis had set in when the body needed to be moved, and so could no longer be manipulated in to a container, that dismemberment starts to seem logical.

 

[Clio]

<rsbm>If he was the person there, or one of the persons, he must have been under some scrutiny by the family. Even if they didn't have suspicions about him, he must have been asked a lot. what do you think?

Whoever it was who was in the house after AG left would have been questioned by the family I'm sure but more to the point, by the police.

 

[Supernovae]

More material on preventing lawful burial:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a37

http://archive.legalscholars.ac.uk/edinburgh/restricted/download.cfm?id=257

It was used in the case of Ben Blakeley's (murder of Jayden Parkinson) brother:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-31019385

It appears he was initially charged with assisting an offender:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/thames_chilte..._teenager_charged_with_assisting_an_offender/

It seems to come down to the inclination of the prosecutor.