Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Becky Watts murder

117 replies

Elendon · 11/11/2015 17:39

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34790804

It seems to me that Matthews was found guilty of murdering Becky and Hoare was found guilty of manslaughter.

Hoare was not present at the killing by all accounts (the killing was within the woods, whilst Hoare was still back at Becky's family home. She was guilty of covering up the murder, but she said that she was controlled by Matthews, and that part of her evidence is also awful.

And what society says that they were a a couple by all accounts when she was 14/15 when they met and he was 22?

Why should women be associated as a murderer just because they happen to be in a dysfunctional relationship with a man who murders?

OP posts:
Original poster
Elendon · 11/11/2015 18:48

My problem with the headline in my OP link is that both are seen to be killers.

OP posts:
HamaTime · 11/11/2015 18:51

Her story was full of holes. He said he killed Becky, got her body into a suitcase and got it into the car while Shauna was smoking a cigarette. It doesn't sound hugely likely. If you were planning a kidnap to 'scare' someone, would you take along another adult that you had to keep it secret from? She was on at least 2 trips with him to buy massive amounts of cleaning supplies (to 'sort out the house') including yards of cling film. Nobody buys 3 packs of cling film at a time, then buys more the next day. It took days to cut Becky's body up with a circular saw and Shauna was in the house the whole time 'not noticing'. A blind man on a galloping horse would notice someone dismembering a body in their only bathroom. This was the time she sent the Frozen parody. They had sent messages to each other about kidnapping a teenage girl. I think it's fine that she should be 'associated with a murderer'. She's in it tits deep.

Mide7 · 11/11/2015 18:51

"My problem with the headline in my OP link is that both are seen"

She was convicted of manslaughter. She is a killer isn't she?

Original poster
Elendon · 11/11/2015 18:52

If women are such weak individuals then maybe we're not ready for women's equality yet then eh? no, thought not.

If Hoare was a 14/15 year old male who had met a man who had sexual fantasies regarding teenage boys...would you be saying that gay men are weak individuals who are not ready for equality yet?

OP posts:
grimbletart · 11/11/2015 18:52

Sorry Vestal: just because we are not equal yet (which I happen to agree) it doesn't give us an excuse to be complicit in murder, dismemberment and disposal of another human being.

Gobbolinothewitchscat · 11/11/2015 18:53

Her defence said she had to drop out of college because Matthews was attending classes with her and had accused her of talking to other men.

ThT was background evidence to try and persuade the jury that this was the reason she had sent, frankly, very disturbing texts about clubbing teenage girls over the head and bringing them home to abuse with him - ie she was trying to keep him sweet.

At no time at all was evidence led by the defence to the effect that she was aware of the murder but was too scared to intervene etc. her position always was that she didn't have a clue.

VestalVirgin · 11/11/2015 18:54

wannaBe, if you are against feminism, then why do you write in the Feminist chat? Your nonsense arguments are old and boring.
Men are the majority of sex offenders, and there is good reason to question the involvement of the woman if a couple is accused.

Original poster
Elendon · 11/11/2015 19:01

she was trying to keep him sweet.

Why would she do that? Would it have anything to do with him being violent towards her?

I'm not excusing her actions, but I do understand them. She is not a killer, Matthews is.

OP posts:
TendonQueen · 11/11/2015 19:01

It does seem odd that her defence didn't attempt to make the argument that she was terrified herself of what he would do if she didn't help him cover it up. The 'didn't know anything had happened' story is obviously a weak one. Which leads me to think that they knew the first version, where she acted out of real fear, wouldn't hold up in court at all and therefore is not true. Not that the second story was either, but that was all they could do.

TendonQueen · 11/11/2015 19:03

The jury, having heard the case, have decided she is a killer, albeit one who hadn't premeditated it.

TrojanWhore · 11/11/2015 19:05

"would you be saying that gay men are weak individuals who are not ready for equality yet?"

No, but then again I didn't start a thread suggesting it was wrong that "women be associated as a murderer just because they happen to be in a dysfunctional relationship with a man who murders"

HamaTime · 11/11/2015 19:11

I'm not excusing her actions, but I do understand them. She is not a killer, Matthews is

She hasn't been convicted of murder. There does seem to be evidence that this was a plan that wrong, and had it not gone wrong then she would have been a kidnapper and sex offender. If you are planning to kidnap someone with a knife and a stun gun in order to submit them to a sexual assault then you have to take some responsibility if the person dies. That's why if, for example, a person is shot and killed during a robbery then all the offenders will be charged with murder, not just the shooter. I think she got of lightly.

Gobbolinothewitchscat · 11/11/2015 19:12

Who knows elendon - her legal team didn't lead specific evidence about that

It could just as easily have been that she didn't want him going off with someone else

Why do we have to assume however that she is a woman, ergo her make partner must have dominated and abused her to make her act in this way. Working on that basis does criminology a great disservice

But your original post was about her conviction for manslaughter

PlaysWellWithOthers · 11/11/2015 19:14

The whole case has been horrible, that poor young woman.

However, it's interesting to me that when my friend's mother was battered to death by her lodger and his boyfriend and they bundled her body up together, put it in the car together, went and bought pizza with her in the car, took money out of her bank account to buy sex toys and then threw her body into a river together, and then went back to the house to clean up and have sex, the lodger was found guilty of murder, and the lover only with preventing the legal burial of a body. I wonder how the courts and juries arrive at their verdicts. Monstering women who deviate from accepted social norms is a well known phenomenon and I wonder if that is partly behind the girlfriend in this case being found guilty of manslaughter on fairly similar evidence levels to the lodger's lover in the murder of my friend's mother.

I'm not for one second suggesting that, given the evidence against her, she was innocent, but I do think that often women get more harshly judged for the same crimes as men.

Not sure if that made sense... hope so!

VestalVirgin · 11/11/2015 19:23

PlaysWellWithOthers, it makes perfect sense. And I also think women are more harshly judged - considering how harshly mothers are judged for insufficient parenting, while fathers are praised for the smallest effort ... it would be very surprising if women were not very harshly judged for committing "unfeminine" crimes.

Original poster
Elendon · 11/11/2015 19:34

I do think that often women get more harshly judged for the same crimes as men.

I agree. But I would go further and say that the Mathews/Hoares relationship was abusive from the offset.

There is no way I would allow my 14/15 daughter/son to have a relationship with a person in their 20s. Never.

OP posts:
Original poster
Elendon · 11/11/2015 19:35

Besides that a 22 year old having sex with a 14 year old is considered rape.

OP posts:
Mide7 · 11/11/2015 19:37

If it was an abusive relationship then manslaughter is the right call IMO

Original poster
Elendon · 11/11/2015 19:38

TendonQueen - The jury, having heard the case, have decided she is a killer, albeit one who hadn't premeditated it.

So is someone who kills a person whilst driving, despite that person having walked out onto the road. You will be convicted of manslaughter. Does that make you a killer?

OP posts:
Original poster
Elendon · 11/11/2015 19:46

I think she should have been convicted of perverting the course of justice and preventing a lawful burial. That's my stance.

A killer she is not.

OP posts:
cadnowyllt · 11/11/2015 19:48

So is someone who kills a person whilst driving, despite that person having walked out onto the road.

On those facts you won't be convicted of anything - where's Florafox when you need her.

TendonQueen · 11/11/2015 19:48

Er, if I've been convicted of manslaughter, yes. With your example, there would have to be something that convinced the jury that the person had died because of something that was within my control - e.g that I was driving too fast or too carelessly - as opposed to the thing I couldn't control, the person walking into the road. One would assume then that the jury in this case thought that there was some element of what Hoares did that she chose to do that contributed to Becky's death.

Mide7 · 11/11/2015 19:49

She could have been found guilty of murder under joint enterprise couldn't she?

Original poster
Elendon · 11/11/2015 19:53

Manslaughter means that that there was no premeditation regarding the death of the person.

Murder is premeditation, i.e. it was planned and executed.

OP posts:
cadnowyllt · 11/11/2015 19:56

Manslaughter means that that there was no premeditation regarding the death of the person

No it doesn't