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

[ColourPurple]

Not sure if this has been picked up on in the past before I joined the forum but after reading this today it made me wonder:

[FONT=open_sans]One of them was browsing the web for the Vampire Diaries during the evening and Matthews claims he bought Becky into the house when Hoare went to bed[/FONT]

[FONT=open_sans].[/FONT][FONT=open_sans]

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Becky-...tory-28078299-detail/story.html#ixzz3q0low5jl
[/FONT]

Could Becky's cuts on her neck from a screwdriver be related to an interest in vampires and drinking blood? Could that be the reason Becky was taken and her body taken back to their home?

It seems a macabre programme to be searching for while they had a dead body in their posession.

 

[ColourPurple]

Looking forward to SH taking the stand today, this should be very interesting and hope it sways our opinion one way or the other & we all meet in the middle. Ha ha, or not.

We're probably all pretty representative of the differing opinions the jury will have, I reckon.

I'm hoping the Prosecution pick up on NM's admitted big mistake that blows SH's kitchen alibi out of the water.

 

[Supernovae]

She has not been charged with assisting an offender because she has been charged with the more serious offence of perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. She has also been charged with preventing lawful burial.

I wasn't aware the perverting the course of justice was necessarily more serious. That was one of the key points in the Maxine Carr trial:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3251651.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/18/soham.ukcrime7

 

[ColourPurple]

I'm also somewhat surprised that some people have a relatively (to Shauna) positive impression of NM because he can turn on the crocodile tears. To me he comes across as glib, self absorbed and self-pitying. He wouldn't be the first narcissist/psychopath to do so.

I think it's more a combination of the tears and the not wanting to look at certain things happening at points when he is discussing horrible things that happened to Becky. It makes him come across as horrified by the visual or descriptive aspects and puts doubt into your mind over whether he could actually have been able to carry out those things. Whereas SH seemed to only get emotional when her friend took the stand and when she thought about how it would all affect her child/ren. But I guess that might change when she takes the stand herself.

 

[ColourPurple]

I wasn't aware the perverting the course of justice was necessarily more serious. That was one of the key points in the Maxine Carr trial:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3251651.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/18/soham.ukcrime7

Perhaps she hasn't been charged with assising an offender because she is being charged with being one of the joint offenders? If they charge her with assisting an offender maybe it would be the equivalent of admiting NM was the offender not her?


The lying to police about them going to stop at her mother's all night, which led to the body being moved before the police got there seems to fall under the description of perverting the course of justice as if she hadn't told that lie police would have searched the house and found the body that night.

Bear in mind I have no legal background so am just maybe-ing lol

 

[musicaljoke]

Waiting with baited breath.....marking my spot.... For SH to take the stand. 😊

Baited .... eeeeewh!

Tee-hee!

 

[MissUnderstood]

Tomorrow will defiantly be interesting with SH on the stand!
Hope we are going to hear from JI and KD as well. I'd like to know if they say they did all that moving of boxes and cases in the dark with SH asleep the whole time!


MOO!!

 

[Thomas Andrews]

To row out = a boating metaphor/idiom

To row out to safety

The pros is implying that NM's 'masterful plan' has Shauna at a safe enough distance from all of NM's actions and therefore can't be implicated.

Well, that's how I understand it!

 

[Alyce]

Morning all, also just marking my spot for today and hoping very much that Justice for Becky is found today with SH on the stand.

 

[edgedweller]

Morning all, also just marking my spot for today and hoping very much that Justice for Becky is found today with SH on the stand.

Totally agree - I hope her testimony swings the jury one way or the other on her guilt/innocence. I have no idea tbh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cottonweaver]

I'm also somewhat surprised that some people have a relatively (to Shauna) positive impression of NM because he can turn on the crocodile tears. To me he comes across as glib, self absorbed and self-pitying. He wouldn't be the first narcissist/psychopath to do so.

For me, it wasn't a positive impression but rather a pitiful/pathetic one based only on him in the two police interviews. He came across as mentally ill with some real learning difficulties.
Having read yesterday's cross examination, I think we are getting a fuller picture of him.

another example from yesterday

"I tried picking her up. It didn't go very well. How many times do I have to repeat, I can't remember all the wording. It is not compete nonsense, not at all."

Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Becky-...tory-28078299-detail/story.html#ixzz3q2UuSQhh

 

[k4kitty]

Today should be very interesting, though I think SH will just deny, deny, deny...

 

[sar2them1984]

Ok just caught up.. gosh the things you miss when you sleep!!

So it's been mentioned a few times about SH being "AGs" carer and yet only vacuuming/washing up so therefore she must be fraudulently claiming carers allowance as she is not caring for AG. Just like to set this straight as part of my current role is assessing individuals carers needs...Caring can take on many forms. For some people it can be support with personal care (washing/toileting), for some it can be physical support I. E. Cleaning, cooking and shopping and for others it can be things such as support to attend medical appointments, form filling or support to attend social activities to deter isolation. The needs are assessed on a personal basis and can be for a whole range of needs or one specific aspect. SH may not even be receiving Carers Allowance...I believe AG was diagnosed with having MS ABOUT 3 years ago - just at the time when Local Authorities (including Bristol) were moving away from the more traditional Carers Allowance and switching to Direct Payments and Personalised Budgets.

With Direct Payments and individuals needs are assessed against a strict criteria - generally only medical/mental health and Health and Safety needs are included- the Social Worker or assessor will then determine how many hours support a week the individual needs - AG can then "employ" so to speak person or persons to carry out the tasks according to her assessed needs and hours and pay them directly..

Alternatively Personalised Budgets are where again, the individuals needs are assessed but this time it takes into account things like social needs, ad hoc needs etc and from the outcome of assessed needs a monetary figure is attached. AG would receive the monetary figure directly to spend as and when she wants. For instance if she is assessed as requiring respite support she would be given x amount of money attached to that need. AG could then use all the money in one go to go on a family holiday or she could use a bit here and there to go on a day trip, pay to attend a respite centre etc similarly she could not spend it on anything to do with respite at all although there are procedures in place to stop that in the main.

So I know I've been rambling but the point I wanted to get across was that we don't know that SH wasn't fulfilling her role as a carer or that she was fraudulently receiving Carers Allowance..we don't know what arrangement was in place. I have very little sympathy now for both NM/SH but I don't think it's fair or right to just assume these things...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[sar2them1984]

Can someone explain this one to me -

“I didn’t want to row out Shauna - Shauna had nothing to do with it.”

What does "row out" mean, is it Bristol speak? I've never heard this phrase before.

It's not a phrase I've heard often but I've heard it used down south (Bristol included) to mean argue or argue with.. doesn't make sense in this context though

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[MissUnderstood]

It's not a phrase I've heard often but I've heard it used down south (Bristol included) to mean argue or argue with.. doesn't make sense in this context though

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Is he saying row as in boat or row as in an argument?


MOO!!

 

[sar2them1984]

Is he saying row as in boat or row as in an argument?


MOO!!

I'm not sure. The "row out" I've used is as in the argument row but as I say it doesn't make sense contextually

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[edgedweller]

Ok just caught up.. gosh the things you miss when you sleep!!

So it's been mentioned a few times about SH being "AGs" carer and yet only vacuuming/washing up so therefore she must be fraudulently claiming carers allowance as she is not caring for AG. Just like to set this straight as part of my current role is assessing individuals carers needs...Caring can take on many forms. For some people it can be support with personal care (washing/toileting), for some it can be physical support I. E. Cleaning, cooking and shopping and for others it can be things such as support to attend medical appointments, form filling or support to attend social activities to deter isolation. The needs are assessed on a personal basis and can be for a whole range of needs or one specific aspect. SH may not even be receiving Carers Allowance...I believe AG was diagnosed with having MS ABOUT 3 years ago - just at the time when Local Authorities (including Bristol) were moving away from the more traditional Carers Allowance and switching to Direct Payments and Personalised Budgets.

With Direct Payments and individuals needs are assessed against a strict criteria - generally only medical/mental health and Health and Safety needs are included- the Social Worker or assessor will then determine how many hours support a week the individual needs - AG can then "employ" so to speak person or persons to carry out the tasks according to her assessed needs and hours and pay them directly..

Alternatively Personalised Budgets are where again, the individuals needs are assessed but this time it takes into account things like social needs, ad hoc needs etc and from the outcome of assessed needs a monetary figure is attached. AG would receive the monetary figure directly to spend as and when she wants. For instance if she is assessed as requiring respite support she would be given x amount of money attached to that need. AG could then use all the money in one go to go on a family holiday or she could use a bit here and there to go on a day trip, pay to attend a respite centre etc similarly she could not spend it on anything to do with respite at all although there are procedures in place to stop that in the main.

So I know I've been rambling but the point I wanted to get across was that we don't know that SH wasn't fulfilling her role as a carer or that she was fraudulently receiving Carers Allowance..we don't know what arrangement was in place. I have very little sympathy now for both NM/SH but I don't think it's fair or right to just assume these things...

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

True, true, it was a complete assumption on my part, based on the fact (another assumption?) that SH & NM seem to be quite comfortably off for two adults with a child and no steady job. Also he has admitted doing cash in hand work to avoid being taxed, so officially he will be classed as unemployed and eligible for Jobseeker's Allowance, etc. I *presume*.

I wasn't trying to cast any aspersions on the Galsworthy family, by the way, or implying that AG was party to a fraudulent claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

Sar, thank you so much for that very comprehensive post re Carers, it was very informative and put things into context. I have dealt with Carers allowance/Attendance allowance for relatives but your outline shows a much more comprehensive ( and sensible ) system in place to the one I had to deal with.

 

[Alyce]

It's not a phrase I've heard often but I've heard it used down south (Bristol included) to mean argue or argue with.. doesn't make sense in this context though

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

If it was not for the fact that NM said this in court, so it could not have been misheard, then I would have said it was a typo and he meant to say

Did not want to row with Shauna

but clearly not the case here

 

[Cherwell]

snipped

the point I wanted to get across was that we don't know that SH wasn't fulfilling her role as a carer or that she was fraudulently receiving Carers Allowance..we don't know what arrangement was in place. I have very little sympathy now for both NM/SH but I don't think it's fair or right to just assume these things...

I've been thinking along similar lines. I don't have any recent experience, but I remember that there used to be an "Attendance Allowance" which could be claimed by someone who was ill or disabled. It was paid to them so that they could pay someone to assist them. I've assumed something similar applied here, and that SH/NM had no official status as carers.