As Week 5 ends, the Defence barristers are having their final say at Becky Watts murder trial – any truth in their responses to the evidence?

becky blueribbon Blue ribbons worn in Becky’s memory

Friday November 6

You don’t really have to be a clever smart-arsed over expensive lawyer to make the closing Defence speeches in the trial of the accused in Nathan Matthews’ stepsister Becky Watts’ murder trial at Bristol Crown Court, do you? NO, we could all have done it couldn’t we – we know what was coming up didn’t we? The final explanations in the defences of some of the accused were quite predictable weren’t they?

Anyway, it is all underway now starting this morning with the guy representing the crafty, porn and teenage loving Matthews, the admitted killer of sixteen year old Becky Watts. On the surface he is asking for ‘sympathy’ and mercy for his client (despite Matthews’ own sorry-less, or ‘lack of compassion and humanity during and after the killing) – telling the Jury that the kidnapping texts were meaningless, ‘a bit silly’ and without sinister motive, so discussions and those numerous graphic texts about kidnapping schoolgirls should not be treated seriously  – but what about that the man has already admitted to attempting to do just that with Becky then, eh? The Jury were advised that the plot from Matthews to kidnap Becky was “boneheaded, extreme and frankly absurd (by his own defence lawyer) and that their emotions should be put to one side? Oh yeah? He claimed (without any evidence presented to the Court however) that Matthews was highly upset with how Becky treated his mum, and wanted to “teach her a lesson”. [Bonehead is a synonym for being a stupid numskull type of person, but that doesn’t really match his clever behaviour in planning, preparing, and carrying out Becky’s kidnap, or killing, or disposing of her, does it?]. It is claimed that Matthews is telling the truth and simply panicked when she resisted his attack, so it wasn’t really ‘murder’ – did he honestly expect her to comply (particularly when evidence was given earlier that he had previously told her that he was going to kill her)? Anyway the barrister has completed his Defence, so it is now up to the Jury to enact justice, isn’t it?

Then it was on to Shauna Hoare’s barrister’s closing Defence statement (which he concluded by the end of the day), who also asks for mercy for his client (pity that wasn’t shown to innocent Becky, eh?), when describing her as a ‘survivor’ from Matthews (she of course denies all charges against her). It has been pointed out to the Jury that it was down to the Prosecution (as we know) to ‘prove’ that Hoare not only knew but agreed to play a part in the kidnap of Becky – did they really do that though? Can she subsequently be found guilty of murder if the kidnap charge fails?

Did Hoare actually know nothing at all, as she claims, or in no way whatsoever help Matthews carry out his admitted crimes (her fingerprints certainly were not found on the dismembered items – but that does not exonerate her, does it?)? Certainly Matthews did an efficient job in cleaning-up and decontaminating the crime scenes – using fuller’s earth bleaching clay powder (an absorbent type material) on the Becky body parts (TA training?). It beggars belief however doesn’t it, that such a clearly bright switched-on woman was completely oblivious to the preparation for a kidnap, then a murder, and the subsequent body dismembering and disposal, all going on directly under her very nose (she was there when all the crimes were committed after all) – she either knew or should have known, surely?

Can she really claim simply to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and everything that happened was coincidences? Is it credible that she has no involvement and was in blissful ignorance and kept out of the way for days on end – certainly she has shown no feelings of sorrow for what happened to Becky (why is that?)? Did she in Court come across as a sad depressed, and downtrodden young woman, basically in abject fear of Matthews, as her Defence say, or did she seem instead to be an emotionless, cool, calculating, confident and experienced young woman? Is it an inescapable deduction that she actually played a compliant and major, full part in all that happened to Becky? Her story would have been more credible if she had admitted something, however small, wouldn’t it?

The other Defence barristers get their say next week and only then will we get to learn what the Jury has decided.


[Will there finally be justice for tragic Becky Watts – don’t hold your breath, will you? It’s our soft legal system you see that lets criminals get off (what evidence did the Defences manage to get suppressed and excluded in the first couple of days of legal arguments of this trial, eh?)].

Becky Watts’ family and friends are wearing a blue ribbon in her memory during the trial




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.