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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure how much weight this can be given, but on the paper's FB page, from someone purporting to be a cousin of one of the 4 charged:

"But its not as clean cut as u think..The police have told us that we can't say anything as it may corrupt the case but my cousins didn't no she was lying dead in his bk garden"


Apologies if this is not allowed!
The Police have said they shouldn't say anything, so they say something. If there was no case against them what would it matter if it was corrupted?
 
<rsbm> So clearly, they knew or heavily suspected by then that no kidnap had taken place.

I'm not so sure it's clear at all. My understanding is that in order to prove a charge of kidnapping, they would need to provide evidence that she was taken or carried away, by force or fraud, without her consent, and without lawful excuse. Maybe they weren't confident that the evidence they have could support all four elements of kidnapping, so they dropped the kidnapping aspect.
 
I'm not so sure it's clear at all. My understanding is that in order to prove a charge of kidnapping, they would need to provide evidence that she was taken or carried away, by force or fraud, without her consent, and without lawful excuse. Maybe they weren't confident that the evidence they have could support all four elements of kidnapping, so they dropped the kidnapping aspect.
I think the kidnapping aspect is being over analysed.

The Police suspected they knew what happened. They needed to question them. Parts of their story probably didn't add up. Not enough cause to arrest them on suspicion of murder so they used something else. As soon as it became clear that it was probably murder they changed the charge.

If they had gone with murder immediately a decent solicitor could have argued they had no evidence or grounds for the arrest and they could have been out in hours. They would then be free to continue to try and cover their tracks.

All the progress came while they were in custody.
 
I think the kidnapping aspect is being over analysed.

The Police suspected they knew what happened. They needed to question them. Parts of their story probably didn't add up. Not enough cause to arrest them on suspicion of murder so they used something else. As soon as it became clear that it was probably murder they changed the charge.

If they had gone with murder immediately a decent solicitor could have argued they had no evidence or grounds for the arrest and they could have been out in hours. They would then be free to continue to try and cover their tracks.

All the progress came while they were in custody.

Yes agree with all of that. If they have evidence that she died in her home, that would explain them dropping the kidnapping aspect. Doesn't work the other way round though. Dropping the kidnapping aspect does not mean she died at home. No kidnapping charge doesn't tell us anything about where she died.
 
I'm not so sure it's clear at all. My understanding is that in order to prove a charge of kidnapping, they would need to provide evidence that she was taken or carried away, by force or fraud, without her consent, and without lawful excuse. Maybe they weren't confident that the evidence they have could support all four elements of kidnapping, so they dropped the kidnapping aspect.

That's true. But you can arrest someone on suspicion without having to prove anything.

I think the kidnapping aspect is being over analysed.

The Police suspected they knew what happened. They needed to question them. Parts of their story probably didn't add up. Not enough cause to arrest them on suspicion of murder so they used something else. As soon as it became clear that it was probably murder they changed the charge.

If they had gone with murder immediately a decent solicitor could have argued they had no evidence or grounds for the arrest and they could have been out in hours. They would then be free to continue to try and cover their tracks.

All the progress came while they were in custody.

That would be my guess.

The police will have asked CPS the question. As in, we've got this couple, they're definitely iffy, we want to interview them under caution and search their home for evidence before they have a chance of geting rid, what grounds do we have for arresting them?
 
That&#8217;s possible but we have no facts available to be able to draw that conclusion. All we can infer at the moment is that the evidence they had at the time of charging indicated that she was dead by some point on the 23rd. There is no public information to say when, where or how she died. There is nothing publically available to say when the body was cut up or when parts were placed where they were found. Awful as it is, we don&#8217;t even know if they have found all of her yet. I am guessing there has been or will be a post mortem which may or may not provide a more accurate time of death.

If they only have evidence to show she was dead by the 23rd, why has NM been charged with murder with the earliest date being the 19th - wouldn't that suggest they think she may have been dead from the 19th? And if she may have been dead from the 19th, how can they know her body wasn't taken to the garden earlier than the 23rd?

It's the discrepancy that's puzzling - surely it would make sense for the timespan to be too wide rather than too narrow (as has clearly happened with NM - the dates for the murder charge begin on the day of Becky's disappearance and end on the day her body was discovered, even though NM was being questioned by the police for the last few days of that and so he obviously didn't murder her then).

That's what makes me think there's some significance in the date of the 22nd, and that it must have to do with the movement of her body rather than them having proof of her death (because the latter would've affected the dates of NM's charge as well). The four charged with assisting an offender have no real reason to lie about the date when the bags/boxes were taken to the house, unless they're denying all knowledge which seems unlikely, so I wonder if the date comes from their own statements.
 
Not sure too much can be read into the precision of the dates, there will be a buffer built in to ensure that they can't wiggle off the charges.

Yes, but surely the range is more likely to be too wide than too narrow? The "disposal" charge presumably refers to the movement of her body, so you'd think they'd want to put the earliest date this could possibly have happened so that, as you say, they can't wiggle off the charges. For some reason the 19th, 20th and 21st are not included as possible dates.
 
Yes, but surely the range is more likely to be too wide than too narrow? The "disposal" charge presumably refers to the movement of her body, so you'd think they'd want to put the earliest date this could possibly have happened so that, as you say, they can't wiggle off the charges. For some reason the 19th, 20th and 21st are not included as possible dates.
That's exactly my point. It's the widest range that they needed. Anything earlier would have been excessive based on what they could already prove.
 
That's exactly my point. It's the widest range that they needed. Anything earlier would have been excessive based on what they could already prove.

There may well be some reason why the charges were framed with the date of 22 February. It may well be that the the police have reason to believe that the body or body parts in question came into the possession of those charged on the 22nd February. But I'm not sure that it matters all that much if the offence was committed before that date as well as after.
 
If they only have evidence to show she was dead by the 23rd, why has NM been charged with murder with the earliest date being the 19th - wouldn't that suggest they think she may have been dead from the 19th?

No It means they don't have evidence to prove when she died so they go from the last time she was seen alive - widest window as has been said.

And if she may have been dead from the 19th, how can they know her body wasn't taken to the garden earlier than the 23rd?

Presumably they only have evidence to prove it was there from 23rd. Maybe it was there longer than that.

It's the discrepancy that's puzzling - surely it would make sense for the timespan to be too wide rather than too narrow (as has clearly happened with NM - the dates for the murder charge begin on the day of Becky's disappearance and end on the day her body was discovered, even though NM was being questioned by the police for the last few days of that and so he obviously didn't murder her then).

That's what makes me think there's some significance in the date of the 22nd, and that it must have to do with the movement of her body rather than them having proof of her death (because the latter would've affected the dates of NM's charge as well). The four charged with assisting an offender have no real reason to lie about the date when the bags/boxes were taken to the house, unless they're denying all knowledge which seems unlikely, so I wonder if the date comes from their own statements.

Understand what you are saying. It could be that they have said they were given the bags/boxes on 22nd. Or maybe there is some other evidence which sets that date. Going back to your original point

Based on the difference between the dates for the murder charge (19th Feb-3rd March, IIRC) and those for the disposal/concealment of the body (22nd Feb-3rd March), I took it to mean they had evidence the body didn't arrive at JP's house before the 22nd. That could be statements from NM or the four arrested. It seems fairly plausible that it would've taken NM a few days to decide what to do and to make contact with one of the four.

BIB Isn't it other way round? They only have evidence of bags/boxes being present after 22nd. Could have been there earlier but they can't prove it but it doesn't matter because bags/boxes were there from 23rd to when they were found and that's long enough for them to be charged with assisting an offender.
 
Becky Watts: Police confirm all her missing belongings have been found

Police have confirmed they have found all the missing belongings of Becky Watts.

The 16-year-old was last seen at her Crown Hill home in St George on Thursday, February 19 and 11 days later her body parts were discovered at an address in Barton Hill.

During the extensive police search for Becky, officers were keen to trace her laptop, phone and a computer tablet, which were reported as missing at the same time as her.

A spokesman for Avon and Somerset police confirmed all her property has now been recovered.


Detailed forensic investigations are set to continue at two properties in Barton Hill and at Becky's homes for the next couple of weeks as part of their investigation into her death.
 
That's exactly my point. It's the widest range that they needed. Anything earlier would have been excessive based on what they could already prove.

We might be saying the same thing then, not sure! Basically what I'm suggesting is that for the police to specify the 22nd, they must have reason to believe the body was moved to the garden (the "disposal" part of the charge) on the 22nd or later. If they weren't sure and thought it could have been earlier, they would've specified an earlier date. Otherwise if, say, they disposed of the body on the 19th and concealed it until it was found, they'd technically have to be found not guilty of disposing of a body between 22nd Feb and 3rd March, and would only be guilty of concealing it.

Not a huge point but it might suggest something of what the four have told police, i.e. that NM brought the bags to the house on the 22nd (or that they collected them then).
 
On a scale of one to ten (where 10 is the dumbest) exactly how dumb are the people charged with this crime?

I think dumb is an understatement... if there were a measure of stupidity, these lot would be somewhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over here, and then some ;)
 
No It means they don't have evidence to prove when she died so they go from the last time she was seen alive - widest window as has been said.
Yes, that's what I was saying - the police think she may have been dead any time from the 19th, but not earlier as she was seen alive then.

Presumably they only have evidence to prove it was there from 23rd. Maybe it was there longer than that.
I guess the question is whether by specifying those two dates, the police need to be able to prove they concealed the body for that entire period. My suspicion is that they don't, and that the two dates specified just represent the widest possible time span during which the crime could have occurred.

That seems clear when you consider that the charge also involved moving (disposing) of the body, so they need to be sure that whatever time range they specify includes that event. If that might have happened before the 22nd, then the police would surely need to have included the earlier dates in the charge as well.

Understand what you are saying. It could be that they have said they were given the bags/boxes on 22nd. Or maybe there is some other evidence which sets that date. Going back to your original point

BIB Isn't it other way round? They only have evidence of bags/boxes being present after 22nd. Could have been there earlier but they can't prove it but it doesn't matter because bags/boxes were there from 23rd to when they were found and that's long enough for them to be charged with assisting an offender.
Evidence of bags/boxes being present from the 22nd would be enough to charge them with concealing a body from that date, but presumably not with disposing of a body if that happened earlier. They could technically get out of it just by saying they did it on the 19th instead...
 
I think dumb is an understatement... if there were a measure of stupidity, these lot would be somewhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over here, and then some ;)

Wow. Dealing with absolute idiots for sure!

Sounds as if these have been recovered following the on-going search at Barton Hill or St.George meaning they weren't recovered from NM or SH properties rather one of the other 4 charged!

Followed this case from the beginning and part of me strongly believes that there is more to this story than meets the eye! IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
1,015
Total visitors
1,150

Forum statistics

Threads
589,928
Messages
17,927,789
Members
228,003
Latest member
Knovah
Back
Top