Blue ribbons worn in Becky’s memory
WEEK 4 underway
The Prosecution have now completed their case against all the accused. How has that left things, eh? Well some of the questions we might have had remain unanswered. We haven’t learned a lot more than we did know already about sixteen years old Becky Watts’ killing. The Defence now though will have their say of course – so perhaps more may come out, particularly under witness cross-examination?
Without having heard all the evidence, unlike the Jury, it is difficult to see from the previous Court reports how killer Nathan Matthews’ long term girlfriend Shauna Hoare can be directly linked by physical evidence to the crimes committed. With his help, she has been able to strongly deny being aware of, or having any knowledge of, or having specific involvement in, on what went on when teenager Becky was killed, mutilated, cut-up, and disposed of. How does one ‘prove’ that someone ‘knew’ something – without a lie detector test? She has shown herself to be a clever, accomplished interview performer, but will she risk giving court evidence? The Prosecution look like having a very difficult case to finally convince the Jury, and Defence lawyers know all the tricks to get their clients off, don’t they?
Her excuses about all her attitudes, actions, and behaviour (like reportedly an unnatural interest in petite teenage girls, communications with Matthews on kidnapping young girls, and her searching on the internet on ‘how to hide a body’ when indeed there was one to hide), plus her apparent total unawareness of events, are on the surface ‘unbelievable’. However, utter disbelief won’t constitute court proof, will it?
Matthews, the dismembering killer, is giving his evidence now, prompted by his Defence team, and like in his police interview he touchingly produced the crying, sobbing and breakdown act in the witness box – who will that impress? He admitted that he had a plan to kidnap Becky but denied murder. and he gave his detailed version of the vile killing and aftermath (he is claiming that the killing was an unfortunate ‘accident’ and that he didn’t intend to harm Becky in any way – strange then that he admits punching her so hard she bled?). His articulate account seems to be in direct conflict though with his police statement for which he claimed he could not tell his account verbally and direct to the police, but only through a written solicitor’s statement?
[Becky Watts’ family and friends are wearing a blue ribbon in her memory during the trial].