GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #15

[ColourPurple]

DG's words make me so sad. If you had a bad feeling about SH from the start, why have her as your wife's carer? Why have her in your home so often?

If he knew that Nathan wanted Becky to be scared of him, why didn't he do something about it? Why give him free access to your house, especially when Becky was there? He says that Nathan's jealousy got worse towards Becky, but did anyone do anything?

If he thought Nathan was looking at young girls inappropriately, why not put more barriers between him and your young daughter? He had some control over him - the control not to have him in the house, or go on holiday with him.

I don't want to be too hard on the family as they have suffered so much, but I can see what Becky's mum meant now. If only Becky had moved in with her.

In the BBC interview DG said he had a bad feeling about SH from the start but that he grew to accept her and then to love her like a daughter.

Interestingly AG said the same as NM grandmother, that (despite being quiet) SH always got what she wanted/got her own way.

I don't think anybody would link NM jumping out to scare Becky with anything sinister. It sounds like the kind of thing my male cousins would do to me when I was younger, making me jump, riding their bikes at me then stopping at the last minute, catching big spiders and throwing them on me. Typical annoying boy stuff.

 

[Yozzer]

I'm afraid to ask what "messing with bodies" really means. I'm inquisitive but not sure if I really want to know.

Does anyone know if it is part of standard TA training to visit a mortuary or morgue? If this former acquaintance is to be believed, it raises questions about the management and supervision of the mortuary, with regards to preserving the dignity of the deceased. Quite shocking really.

 

[YidArmyRach]

In the BBC interview DG said he had a bad feeling about SH from the start but that he grew to accept her and then to love her like a daughter.

Interestingly AG said the same as NM grandmother, that (despite being quiet) SH always got what she wanted/got her own way.

I don't think anybody would link NM jumping out to scare Becky with anything sinsiter. It sounds like the kind of thing my male cousins would do to me when I was younger, making me jump, riding their bikes at me then stopping at the last minute, catching big spiders and throwing them on me. Typical annoying boy stuff.

Thanks, I guess when a quote is taken out of context, and you don't see the original source, it can give a totally different impression.

 

[mrazda71]

Gosh, I wish AG and DG every chance of keeping together a strong and loving marriage. I hope they receive counselling to help them through what will inevitably be a bumpy road ahead. I can imagine if AG wants to maintain contact with NM this will be difficult for DG. Not that it is any of my business mind.

I think there's a possibility of the opposite being true.

If Darren really WANTS to know what REALLY happened to Becky then I think the only chance to find out is Anji making Nathan at least believe that she is still there for him and hoping that in time he will tell her.

 

[Yozzer]

I don't think anybody would link NM jumping out to scare Becky with anything sinister. It sounds like the kind of thing my male cousins would do to me when I was younger, making me jump, riding their bikes at me then stopping at the last minute, catching big spiders and throwing them on me. Typical annoying boy stuff.

Except NM is 28 and a father. DG could at least have had a 'fatherly' word e.g. "time to grow up lad".

 

[Tortoise]

We have no idea if the interrogators made note of Shauna Hoare's remarks about Becky using the past tense. Or if they followed up with questions specifically concerning such remarks.

We've seen only a small bit of the interrogation video(s).

Yes, you're quite right. Thank you for correcting me. Here's what I should have posted for correctness -

So, they charged SH with attempting to pervert the course of justice because they didn't believe her accounts that she knew nothing about Becky's disappearance. It seems to me that they may have missed or excused her past tense references to Becky the week before, because they didn't charge her with murder for several months.

 

[YidArmyRach]

I think there's a possibility of the opposite being true.

If Darren really WANTS to know what REALLY happened to Becky then I think the only chance to find out is Anji making Nathan at least believe that she is still there for him and hoping that in time he will tell her.

Or, if he wants his mum to be there for him, she could refuse to visit him until he tells someone the truth.

 

[ColourPurple]

Except NM is 28 and a father. DG should at least have had a 'fatherly' word e.g. "time to grow up lad".

At least one of my cousins still does stuff like that now lol Some boys never grow up.

 

[Clio]

Yes, you're quite right. Thank you for correcting me. Here's what I should have posted for correctness -

So, they charged SH with attempting to pervert the course of justice because they didn't believe her accounts that she knew nothing about Becky's disappearance. It seems to me that they may have missed or excused her past tense references to Becky the week before, because they didn't charge her with murder for several months.

Because they had no proof until later. As it is the only way they could charge her with murder was under JE because of the kidnapping texts, rape video etc

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes, you're quite right. Thank you for correcting me. Here's what I should have posted for correctness -

So, they charged SH with attempting to pervert the course of justice because they didn't believe her accounts that she knew nothing about Becky's disappearance. It seems to me that they may have missed or excused her past tense references to Becky the week before, because they didn't charge her with murder for several months.

They could have thought past tense references could just mean she knew she was dead, not that she was involved in the death .

 

[ColourPurple]

I agree, Brady and Hindley had a tape recording of the torture of one of their victims, who knows what they'd have done with today's technology.

And Hindley was key to the crimes because their victims were more likely to trust a woman than a man on his own .No doubt these days she'd be the one in the partnership befriending potential victims on facebook.

 

[Kaly99]

morning kaly,

obviously (sorry!) we don't know how the jury discussed this, so it is pure guesswork, but to have convicted SH on the kidnap charge I think the following might have played a part in their decision -

1. They didn't believe a single word she said
2. They believed that they went there with a joint purpose to kidnap
3. SH revealed her dislike of Becky and no sadness or grief after her death - she played a cover up game (with NM) to AG and DG an hour afterwards. That is shocking IMO.
4. They had the sexual motive in the prior sexual experimentation with a female friend and the kidnap texts - I doubt very much whether these played no part in their decision on this.
5. His stated motive seems likely to be one plotted by them both to get him a light sentence, knowing no-one can 'prove' otherwise - make it seem like he had no malicious intent and it was an accident - he is unlikely ever to reveal a sexual element or intent to kill.
6. He has this massive collection of *advertiser censored* films and pictures, and *advertiser censored* addiction, and has admitted using prostitutes because he needs this outlet for his sexual frustration he can't satisfy in his relationship with SH.

I cannot believe his story, of that I am sure, so I doubt all 11 of them did.

Hi Tortoise.

Thanks for that. I can certainly believe that the jury didn't buy NM's story, but what puzzles me then are the different verdicts for NM and SH. I think there are a few scenarios which might have led to that outcome:

1) The jury thought NM's basic story of kidnapping Becky to teach her lesson might be true, but disbelieved him that SH wasn't involved. The original intention wasn't to seriously harm or kill Becky, but something went wrong, NM snapped, and killed her in anger. Murder for NM, manslaughter for SH.

2) They believed the prosecution's sexual motive theory and that SH was involved, but disagreed that the intention was to seriously harm or kill Becky. Something went wrong and NM killed Becky, something SH couldn't have been expected to foresee; hence the different verdicts.

3) It's also possible the jury thought SH was in the dark about some part of the plan, that NM intended to kill or seriously harm Becky but didn't tell SH about it. I can't see why they would conclude that though, given they thought the kidnap plot had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

It's puzzling, and a bit frustrating there's no serious discussion in the media about this type of thing!

 

[Kaly99]

I agree completely with her. "This wasn't about sex, it was about envy."

I fully agree too, and how refreshing to see a rare intelligent article on this case for a change instead of all the sensationalist headlines. I also think she's right that the sex angle is one key factor which has kept the case in the media (as we can see now, with so many of the headlines being about *advertiser censored* or schoolgirl sex fantasies!).

 

[Tortoise]

Because they had no proof until later. As it is the only way they could charge her with murder was under JE because of the kidnapping texts, rape video etc

If you are present with another person who commits a murder, the fact you are there and without a reasonable explanation for not knowing it was happening, is sufficient to bring a charge of joint enterprise. An assault leading to murder or even a pre-planned murder may be planned in a minute, it doesn't have to have been agreed the day before. But having said that, I agree that the police probably didn't investigate fully the relevance of the purchase of the stun guns and the kidnap texts until later on, and that was the missing piece of their jigsaw.

 

[sar2them1984]

Oh dear I see people are starting to turn against the Galsworthys for their decision to go to the press today and for decorating Beckys room now when it was such as state before...feel really sorry for them

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Beesknees]

Dear fellows,

First of all and at the top I want to thank you all for the strength, mindfulness, partnership, effort, consideration and humanity you have put in wanting to find Justice for Becky with dignity and respect. The discussions, thoughts, ideas and feelings shared here along these months were so important and joined together so many diferente persons from diferente places and nations.

Becky Watts was the motive why I joined WS. It worried and distressed me from the beginning. Her age, the way she disappeared, that first interview when her father cried so much and seemed so desperate, and all what we, bit by bit were learning about this case, had me stuck to it.
Later, when we learned how she was treated before and after death, my 'thirst' for Justice for her turned stronger and stronger as strong and deep was my belief that SH was as much guilty as NM.

Now I want to apologize if, because I was so deeply believing of their guilt, sometimes I would appear as flippant or too confident in it. There were times when I got frustrated with the simple fact that some of you would say for exemple 'oh, I think she must have known' because for me it was 'she knew? No, she not only knew, she was a part of it from start to end!'

So, on those occasions I preferred to stick to my beliefs and didn't want even to discuss something I thought I was sure of. Of course this is not the right way, as the discussions are so thought provoking and I was like 'deaf' to it all if it was not about SH being completly guilty.

I had nothing against SH specially. The 'only' thing that I had against her and turned me more vocal about her was the fact that she denied everything when it was for me impossible, as I repeated ad nauseum (my apologies) - if she wasn't blind, deaf or completely handicaped - not to have a clue about the crimes that were happening under her nose. So, my rage about SH was this feeling that only a complet cold blood and dangerous person could pretend she knew nothing being aside...

Having said this I want to apologize mrazda71 because sometimes I took it too strongly and thought you were defending someone that for me was so guilty. I only had to respect your point of view and nothing else.

Yesterday was a diferente day here in Portugal. A day when the families reunite to celebrate the S. Martin's day. The families joing together and make big bonfires (if they live in rural zones) or simply in our grill as it was my case, and grill chestnuts, eat nuts, almonds, grapes, sweet potatoes, cakes and try the first wine from the harvest.

It is a family gather that has to do with the Autumn harvest, etc.

So, I was busy preparing it all as I would have 9 more persons at home to have dinner and was not worry about any delievery from Becky's jury as I thought it would be perhaps only next week that we would know about the verdits!

This way I was out of the computer much more than in the previous days...

I had a cake in the oven and after finishing preparing the pomegranates which my two boys love and are a mess to prepare... I came here quickly, not that I thought any verdicts were delivered, but only to have a peek on here and see what people were saying and to see if there was something new when I saw the verdicts were delivered and what a verdicts!!

Ialmost couldn't type so much were the tears rolling down my face... ... ... ... ...

I only left brief post for BECKY and had to log out and go on crying and preparing the family dinner... ... ...

It was around 1.30 am when all left and I was so tired and so needing to update as I knew nothing, I wanted so much to read here the reactions, I wanted to talk to you all... I didn't expect! I thought the jury could be wrongly deceived by their 'songs' and give SH a not guilty...

In my rant I too was critical of the prosecution, but it was also in the same line of what I explained above: nothing for me seemed enough to serve justice for Becky...

So, here we are now. A big feeling of relief and also looking for tomorrow (ohhh, this time I will not lose it) to see what the judge makes of this all at this time and for the first time in this trial I am confident that they will be given long sentences and will be most of their lives if not all their lives where they belong - out of society because these two are a real danger and I wonder what they would do weren't they caught this time. Or even what they did before because we don't know if Becky was their first victim!

For all that worked in this case I take my hat off. It was such a distressing and awful case.

For Becky's family I wish they can go on with their lives the best possible and make this tragedy to be a way for them to join together, to spread love and to cherish each day of life as it can be cut so short and I believe we only have this very one to live.

For you all here, this buzz bollock :laughing: :floorlaugh: wish the best. You were all great

fellows and we'll go on seeing ones anothers around here :loveyou:

THANK YOU! :daisy:

 

[Tortoise]

Hi Tortoise.

Thanks for that. I can certainly believe that the jury didn't buy NM's story, but what puzzles me then are the different verdicts for NM and SH. I think there are a few scenarios which might have led to that outcome:

1) The jury thought NM's basic story of kidnapping Becky to teach her lesson might be true, but disbelieved him that SH wasn't involved. The original intention wasn't to seriously harm or kill Becky, but something went wrong, NM snapped, and killed her in anger. Murder for NM, manslaughter for SH.

2) They believed the prosecution's sexual motive theory and that SH was involved, but disagreed that the intention was to seriously harm or kill Becky. Something went wrong and NM killed Becky, something SH couldn't have been expected to foresee; hence the different verdicts.

3) It's also possible the jury thought SH was in the dark about some part of the plan, that NM intended to kill or seriously harm Becky but didn't tell SH about it. I can't see why they would conclude that though, given they thought the kidnap plot had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

It's puzzling, and a bit frustrating there's no serious discussion in the media about this type of thing!

great ideas. I think I'd go with point 2 the most, just because that is the Crown's case and there is some evidence that everything they do has a sexual motive of some sort. But I say that not really knowing whether I believe it in my heart. To my mind they would not have let Becky go alive, and therefore it may have been a combination of rape and killing/staging as suicide or just a killing they had planned.

As a jury, I don't think you have to agree with the motive for kidnap or murder that is proffered by the prosecution - you only have to be certain they did the crime they are charged with. I would have gone for a longer dissection of the possibilities in the jury room. Part of deciding whether someone had intent is surely finding and agreeing upon what could have been in the mind(s) of the perpetrators and how they would have planned to avoid charges for kidnap / imprisonment or assault. He used so much violence to get Becky out of the house, that to my mind it headed almost immediately into actions intended to cause death when she didn't cooperate and comply, but his stun gun makes me think he had planned to get her out of the house alive.

NM said something like 'obviously I would have told her to keep her eyes closed and she wouldn't have followed me because you don't follow someone who has scared you or threatened you'. It sounds like a very small child's dreams.

At the end of the day I suppose the jury did not feel able to be certain that death was their ulterior motive. And possibly NM deviated from their plan to let her go alive eventually.

 

[Tortoise]

lovely post Beesknees, enjoyed reading. and have always enjoyed your input very much. don't go just yet! you have to be here for the sentencing!

 

[Beesknees]

Can I ask for a favour?

Would you mind to give me the links where information has been released as well as family interviews, etc, since the verdicts. I haven't read anything. I only read it all here on WS and I was many pages late. To read all your posts here I still had not the time to go to the MSM and read it all from yesterday but I saw here by your posts that a lot of new information is coming to light.

Where can I find the police speech after the release of the verdicts? I's love to read it too.

Ohhh I use to see Sky News every so often as I have it. Yesterday I would be watching and listening to it in the kitchen while I was preparing things, but I never thought they had the verdicts. How could I know? I lost it all. So, if you can provide the links for the main things I am so thanked :bee: lol

 

[Clio]

It seems to me that they may have missed or excused her past tense references to Becky the week before, because they didn't charge her with murder for several months.

If you are present with another person who commits a murder, the fact you are there and without a reasonable explanation for not knowing it was happening, is sufficient to bring a charge of joint enterprise. An assault leading to murder or even a pre-planned murder may be planned in a minute, it doesn't have to have been agreed the day before. But having said that, I agree that the police probably didn't investigate fully the relevance of the purchase of the stun guns and the kidnap texts until later on, and that was the missing piece of their jigsaw.

That's not the type of JE they used though is it. They used type 3 JE

Where P and D participate together in one crime (crime A) and in the course of it P commits a second crime (crime B) which D had foreseen he might commit.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/joint_enterprise.pdf

In relation to SH, until such time as there was something they could use as proof of her participation in crime A (kidnap) they couldn't bring charges of Crime B (murder).

Personally, I don't think they overlooked her past tense references and I don't think they didn't fully investigate - I think it took time for them to recover enough evidence to be able to bring a conspiracy to kidnap change against her, thus allowing them to also bring a murder charge under JE.