GUILTY UK - Diane Stewart, 47, found dead, Bassingbourn, Cambridgeshire, 25 June 2010 *arrest in 2020*

[Alyce]

R -v- Stewart: Sentencing Remarks

Very useful to read this and finally hear some more details - particularly the timings on that morning and how IS changed his Tesco story after he was told the evidence of the length of time it took for Diane to die.

 

[Rusty Braincells]

Very useful to read this and finally hear some more details - particularly the timings on that morning and how IS changed his Tesco story after he was told the evidence of the length of time it took for Diane to die.

Yes indeed. I was quite sure in my own mind Stewart killed Diane, but not sure how it could be shown. These types of details have removed any lingering doubt I might have had. He took advantage of the narrow window when both boys were out and Diane was off work, and made up a feeble alibi when his timeline didn't work.

 

[MonsterMatt345]

Very useful to read this and finally hear some more details - particularly the timings on that morning and how IS changed his Tesco story after he was told the evidence of the length of time it took for Diane to die.

I was just thinking this exact thing. Originally it seemed like the very hard to deny brain evidence was the only evidence we really had that Diane was murdered but there’s so much else about his story that’s clearly ridiculous and makes him so obviously guilty in the sentencing remarks.

That he tried to buy time finding a doctor he already knew wasn’t around, that he spent ages trying to find a landline phone despite having a mobile phone, that his Tesco story is so insanely meandering and hard to believe, there’s so much here that I have no doubt he killed Diane. Send him down indeed

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

A body language expert would have a field day with this 7 minute interview.

He can't keep still for a second.

Rubbing his hands over his face, his ears, his head, his arms. Notice too how his right hand goes into a fist at points, and he uses his left hand to almost hold it down.

Helen Bailey killer is found guilty of murdering his first wife in 2010 | Daily Mail Online

 

[Kasmeer]

Glad to see justice done once again - what a great job by the investigating police to put the effort in for Diane, rather than just leaving it as a suspicion, given he was likely to die in prison anyway.

I feel so bad for the sons, although perhaps in a way it's a relief; they must have been wondering as much as the rest of us since he was convicted of Helen's death, at least now they have justice for their mother. Whole life is a very appropriate sentence, good riddance, and I hope we hear no more about him (although I equally hope the police are checking up on any other deaths of people associated with him - I just hope that there is no more to hear about!)

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

Loathsome. "You're joking!", is exactly the first thing Stewart said when arrested for Helen's murder too, if I recall correctly. He really thinks he is so clever. The sad part is only Helen's death meant Diane's death was investigated properly, as others have said.

Yes it was.

He says exactly the same!

"You're joking!"

See it here

The moment Ian Stewart is arrested for Helen Bailey’s murder – video

 

[Scratchingmyhead]

Very useful to read this and finally hear some more details - particularly the timings on that morning and how IS changed his Tesco story after he was told the evidence of the length of time it took for Diane to die.

Very useful indeed. A lot of dots were joined up.
Jamie's evidence was factual and objective and certainly unhelpful to his father's case. He refuted IS's assertions in particular the time he left home (9 o'clock- not 10 o'clock as IS had stated). Jamie definitely knew his father was lying/guilty. Much of what IS said in both trials, the sons would have known to be untrue. Did IS think he could trust their loyalty to lie on his behalf? If so, he was wrong.
Also - re a question previously raised- IS's father confirmed that he did indeed possess a mobile phone - a very important point as it turned out...

 

[Rusty Braincells]

Very useful indeed. A lot of dots were joined up.
Jamie's evidence was factual and objective and certainly unhelpful to his father's case. He refuted IS's assertions in particular the time he left home (9 o'clock- not 10 o'clock as IS had stated). Jamie definitely knew his father was lying/guilty. Much of what IS said in both trials, the sons would have known to be untrue. Did IS think he could trust their loyalty to lie on his behalf? If so, he was wrong.
Also - re a question previously raised- IS's father confirmed that he did indeed possess a mobile phone - a very important point as it turned out...

Thinking about Jamie & Oliver having to give evidence is heartbreaking. Poor Oliver had to identify his mother’s body. The boys saw their mother dead on the ground in the garden and Stewart knew they likely would with the timings. Stewart is despicable.

I really wonder what IS was thinking stating facts that could be easily refuted by his son and his father. Did he think they wouldn’t simply tell the truth? I don’t think his mind works like a normal person’s though. The judge even noted what a “normal” person would do — call 999 on their mobile that they own… when they saw Diane collapsed, not everything Stewart claims he did. It was a charade of course too, as the judge said. Diane was dead, deliberately, at Stewart’s hands, so of course he hadn’t tried to save her.

Stewart is in some ways more terrifying than a random predator. Diane and Helen loved him and trusted him enough to share their lives with him, and he plotted each of their demises for money and some kind of convenience, it seems. I am sure he planned what he did to Helen from the start, and targeted her for being fairly well-off.

 

[neteditor]

Thinking about Jamie & Oliver having to give evidence is heartbreaking. Poor Oliver had to identify his mother’s body. The boys saw their mother dead on the ground in the garden and Stewart knew they likely would with the timings. Stewart is despicable.

I really wonder what IS was thinking stating facts that could be easily refuted by his son and his father. Did he think they wouldn’t simply tell the truth? I don’t think his mind works like a normal person’s though. The judge even noted what a “normal” person would do — call 999 on their mobile that they own… when they saw Diane collapsed, not everything Stewart claims he did. It was a charade of course too, as the judge said. Diane was dead, deliberately, at Stewart’s hands, so of course he hadn’t tried to save her.

Stewart is in some ways more terrifying than a random predator. Diane and Helen loved him and trusted him enough to share their lives with him, and he plotted each of their demises for money and some kind of convenience, it seems. I am sure he planned what he did to Helen from the start, and targeted her for being fairly well-off.

He joined the Facebook widows group on purpose to find a new victim, of that I am in no doubt, and neither are my friends who were in the group whom he also befriended (I think even before Helen was on the scene).

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

How brain tissue donation helped unravel Ian Stewart’s web of lies

 

[Scratchingmyhead]

. I am sure he planned what he did to Helen from the start, and targeted her for being fairly well-off.
I also believe that the fact she had no children was very significant. Also that her brother lived quite far away and that her parents were elderly. I think he chose Helen carefully. Somebody with children and a close family, living nearby would not have suited his future plans.
I do believe that for those reasons, Helen was targeted.

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

A DOUBLE killer gasps "you're joking" after being held for murdering his first wife in a chilling echo of his arrest for killing his fiancee.

Black Widower Ian Stewart can be seen smirking in the back of a cop car after officers told him he was arrested for murdering Diane Stewart.


The monster gasps "you're joking" before muttering: "Ooh you're digging desperate".

As an officer continues to read his rights, Stewart adds: "Oh for sake, what a load of ********".

Stewart adds: "Have you got nothing better to do than make things up?"

He then shakes his head and smirks while looking out the car window.

Smirking killer gasps 'you're joking' as he's arrested for first wife's murder

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

. I am sure he planned what he did to Helen from the start, and targeted her for being fairly well-off.
I also believe that the fact she had no children was very significant. Also that her brother lived quite far away and that her parents were elderly. I think he chose Helen carefully. Somebody with children and a close family, living nearby would not have suited his future plans.
I do believe that for those reasons, Helen was targeted.

I wonder, if he hadn't have been caught, would his greed have prompted him to go on for a third victim? Or would he have been satisfied with his wealthy status after Helen's death?

 

[Rusty Braincells]

He joined the Facebook widows group on purpose to find a new victim, of that I am in no doubt, and neither are my friends who were in the group whom he also befriended (I think even before Helen was on the scene).

Wow, thank you for that detail. That is so creepy. His whole life should be looked at to make sure he didn’t hurt anyone else.

 

[neteditor]

Wow, thank you for that detail. That is so creepy. His whole life should be looked at to make sure he didn’t hurt anyone else.

I think it's clear who his targets are, I doubt there are other victims. He doesn't have the courage to attack a stranger, and anyway what would he gain from that? Money is his motivation, lots of it.

 

[Rusty Braincells]

I think it's clear who his targets are, I doubt there are other victims. He doesn't have the courage to attack a stranger, and anyway what would he gain from that? Money is his motivation, lots of it.

I said above, I don’t think he hurt anyone he doesn’t know, but should he have had (or his wife have had), for example, an elderly parent or aunt or uncle or even friend or neighbour who might remember them in their will pass away, I’d go back and make sure to check it out, suspicious or not, because if Stewart could have made money off it, it might have crossed his mind.

 

[scandinavian girl]

I do believe he targeted Helen too because she had no children. Wasn´t there another lady he met for a date and as soon she mentioned she had children he was not interested and just left.

 

[Rusty Braincells]

I do believe he targeted Helen too because she had no children. Wasn´t there another lady he met for a date and as soon she mentioned she had children he was not interested and just left.

Disturbing. Poor Helen. May she and Diane rest in peace.

 

[Scratchingmyhead]

I do believe he targeted Helen too because she had no children. Wasn´t there another lady he met for a date and as soon she mentioned she had children he was not interested and just left.

There was at least one that I know of. She was much younger than him. Don't know if she had children. He spent a Christmas day with her apparently.

 

[Skigh]

I said above, I don’t think he hurt anyone he doesn’t know, but should he have had (or his wife have had), for example, an elderly parent or aunt or uncle or even friend or neighbour who might remember them in their will pass away, I’d go back and make sure to check it out, suspicious or not, because if Stewart could have made money off it, it might have crossed his mind.

It is not out of the realms of possibility that he met up with someone such as a sex worker to practise his killing technique before using it on Diane.