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

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by Coldpizza, Mar 4, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wallace

    Wallace New Member

    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     


  2. Clio

    Clio Active Member

    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  3. Wallace

    Wallace New Member

    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Clio

    Clio Active Member

    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  5. aneurin

    aneurin New Member

    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's true. But you can arrest someone on suspicion without having to prove anything.

    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?
     
  6. Kaly99

    Kaly99 Member

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  7. Kaly99

    Kaly99 Member

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  8. Wallace

    Wallace New Member

    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  9. aneurin

    aneurin New Member

    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Clio

    Clio Active Member

    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.

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

    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.
     
  11. solar

    solar New Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
  12. skibaboo

    skibaboo Mrs Map

    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    545
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  13. Wallace

    Wallace New Member

    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. Kaly99

    Kaly99 Member

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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).
     
  15. k4kitty

    k4kitty New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On a scale of 1-10....11? :thinking:
     
  16. Wallace

    Wallace New Member

    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm thinking at least 20.
     
  17. skibaboo

    skibaboo Mrs Map

    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    545
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think dumb is an understatement... if there were a measure of stupidity, these lot would be somewhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over here, and then some ;)
     
  18. Kaly99

    Kaly99 Member

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.

    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.

    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...
     
  19. Edinlass

    Edinlass Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    6,700
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  20. skibaboo

    skibaboo Mrs Map

    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    545
    Trophy Points:
    113
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice