Monday November 2
Girlfriend Shauna Hoare of killer Nathan Matthews has continued her evidence under the guidance of her own barrister’s questions, so we didn’t really expect to learn anything from there, did we? No, her defence to murder, kidnap and the other charges against her is that she is like the Japanese three wise monkeys who ‘see no evil, hears no evil, speak no evil’, isn’t it – apparently she knew NOTHING whatsoever and was blissfully ignorant about what went on in the kidnapping, killing, chopping-up, and hiding of Becky’s body parts?
The Prosecution insists that it wasn’t even that Hoare ‘turned a blind eye’ to Matthews’ crimes, but that she was an active participant. The problem they seem to face is all their evidence seems to be totally circumstantial, doesn’t it?
She is being cross-examined by the Prosecution now, but there really is no way that they will be able to breakdown her story is there? This woman is a clever cookie who has shown herself to be a bright, articulate, and resourceful performer under direct questioning. She has had as well many months to rehearse her evidence under the guidance of her legal team, surely? The original reported concept that she was some kind of shy inadequate individual was clearly badly mistaken, eh?
She has explained being a liar to police as a much regretted mistake because it made things look worse, her numerous sick messages to Matthews implicating herself in fantasies of kidnapping of teenage girls, as her ‘being sarcastic by nature’, and making-up and saying about doing such things to get Matthews into a better mood, indeed? Her suddenly debunking to her estranged for four years mother’s house immediately after the killing of Becky, was not to find a bolt hole, but she says was simply another strange unhappy coincidence, do you accept?
All her stuff is unbelievable rubbish, isn’t it – totally implausible (not simply ‘slightly unlikely’ as she has claims), when you take into account that after the six years that she & Matthews had spent together, their strange lives were so intertwined that no one could consider that they had separated lives in any way, nor indeed any thoughts or actions that weren’t shared, eh? But she insists she didn’t even suspect the horrors that went on when she was there in Becky’s home when she was killed, nor even back in her own house when the young girl was dismemberd, (things that subsequently she claimed even made her feel sick – notwithstanding the background evidence of all her attitudes, actions, and behaviour). Not a word that has come out of her mouth has been convincing or credible, has it?
It may well be that the Jury will not buy her story in any way, nor her unlikely explanations of her non-involvement, but they won’t convict her without better physical proof or direct testimony against her, will they?
[Becky Watts’ family and friends are wearing a blue ribbon in her memory during the trial].