I'm back to celebrate the latest murder charge re Diane Stewart, 3 years after Herman Munster's conviction for killing Helen Bailey. Good to see so many familiar names here discussing it!
I don't quite remember how Websleuths works, so apologies if I post in the wrong place or make other balls-ups. I do recall the chat was utterly addictive throughout the Helen Bailey murder trial. It even got me drugging myself with my own Zopiclone sleeping tablets, to test out Stewart's M.O. (verdict - he doctored her morning vitamin supplements - 'cos Zopiclone tastes absolutely VILE added to food, and as I know from bitter experience, tea too). We true crime followers suffer for our art!
The wheels of justice sure turn slowly. I'd assumed Diane's cremation would rule out a fresh murder charge. Police must have strong evidence to take this to trial, I'm intrigued to hear it.
Stewart will be 90 before he's eligible for parole for Helen's murder, and I hope when this new trial is done he won't even have that small glimmer of hope. Justice for Diane is long overdue.
This new/old case throws up so many questions, not least how Ian Stewart got away with killing his wife and mother of his two sons. Their family snaps show a pleasant, smiley woman and an oddball husband, who never had to work thanks to an amazing illness insurance policy he cashed in 20 years earlier, which paid him £2k a month tax free for the rest of his natural. I'm still reeling from that courtroom revelation! Gotta hand it to him, he achieved the 'low hanging fruit', something-for-nothing dream lifestyle with aplomb - till he was slung in the slammer at 56.
By all accounts, Stewart was always dislikeable, introspective and socially inept. He wasn't popular with his 'pals' at the bowls club who said he was as tight as a duck's sphincter whenever there was a group whip round (he once refused to chip in for a round of coffee).
Helen's friends and neighbours confirmed he was utterly charmless. One recalled : "He never volunteered information, you had to drag it out of him. I wouldn't have put those two together in a million years".
So it's likely Diane's family had misgivings about him. But as far as we know, when she suddenly died aged 47 they didn't pursue any suspicions of foul play and the coroner wrapped it up as natural causes pretty quickly. Or will we learn that Diane's relatives DID suspect him, but were thwarted by the official verdict? Obviously these details have huge implications re the subsequent murders of Helen and her beloved dog. Could/should Stewart have been caught before he killed again?
And btw, did he really murder the mother of his children for a lousy £80k? Multi millionaire Helen clearly never stood a chance. Writing on her blog, Helen believed her romance with 'GGHW', aka 'Gorgeous Grey Haired Widower' (later corrected to 'Grotesque Greedy Homicidal W*nker'), had various false starts. But she was sadly mistaken. Because when they first got chatting online, and she innocently agreed to his request to email him a photo of her Highgate mansion, her fate was sealed. Stewart wasn't going to let this wealthy widow escape his clutches till he'd taken every single thing she owned, including her life.
There were no false starts, as she thought. He was a man on a mission. But it's hard to see what Helen got from her relationship with Ian Stewart, even during their early honeymoon phase. He promised to marry her so she'd alter her will in his favour. But he didn't buy her an engagement ring (he actually gave her Diane's eternity ring - Ewww! Didn't alarm bells ring with her then???) He instructed her not to tell his sons or his parents they were engaged (ditto). He showed obvious boredom when she took him to the exclusive Bond Street jeweller to discuss the £14,500 pink diamond engagement ring she wanted, and was no doubt planning to pay for herself (he subsequently told her to email the jeweller and request a discount). And he showed little enthusiasm for the wedding she was keenly planning at Brocket Hall. Because like the pink diamond ring of her dreams, he knew she would be dead before it materialised.
Stewart was no Brad Pitt lookalike, nor was he charismatic. So what the hell was this monosyllabic bore's appeal to women??? I think in Helen's case it had much to do with her vulnerability when she met him, so soon after her husband John's death. She and John were a love match, who met when she was just 22. He was her one serious relationship, and soul mate, they were happy together. Without him she was bereft.
A therapist might have advised her not to dive quickly into another committed relationship. But she was new to the single life, and it scared her. So it's not too surprising she was keen to leave 'Planet Grief', re-marry and return to the cosy domestic set-up that was familiar to her. If only she had dated a few men and played the field, she may have found an eligible one. Instead she let Stewart love-bomb her without any romantic rivals, slept with him after a month (a big deal for a woman who had been faithful to the same man for over 20 years), and quickly convinced herself he was Mr Right.
Vulnerable, lonely women tend to see what they want to see in a male suitor. They miss or misinterpret red flags that should tell them loud and clear a man is not right for them. They may even project positive qualities that they want him to have, and tell others that's who he is (as she did in her book), knowing deep down that is not even close to who he is.
From what I've learned of the background to this tragic case, it's hard to escape the feeling Helen knew damn fine Ian Stewart was the wrong fit. They had nothing in common - she was smart, glamorous, funny, popular with a big career and a taste for the finer things in life. Stewart was decidedly average in every way. He had no career beyond tinkering with computers (pages from a website he was constructing for Helen were laughably amateurish), no interests bar the odd game of bowls, and precious little life experience, wit, sophistication or style. He didn't even like her dog! As I can vouch, you always know how people feel about your precious pets - and just as revealing, how your pets feel about them!
Helen adored Boris, and had dachshund images everywhere around their home in tribute to him. Apparently Stewart resented this (and presumably in turn, the dog), asking Helen if there could be 'just one room' in the house that didn't have any dachshund paraphernalia in it. At that point she should have decided Stewart was the only unwanted household nick-nack, booted him out and changed the locks. Oh, if only she had.
When he took the stand, he presented himself as non-materialistic, to counter the allegation he killed his fiancée for her millions. He told the court he was happy to use Easyjet, while Helen preferred to fly first class - a statement which only confirmed their starkly diverse styles, and his meanness!
If he had got away with murder and secured all Helen's money, what was he planning to do with it? My guess is, nothing much. He hasn't the imagination or flair to make a good job of wealth. For Ian Stewart, money in the bank represents power and status, and is an end in itself. He persuaded Helen to splash out on that huge mansion with swimming pool in his Hertfordshire home town, so he could lord it over everyone who knew him. Oh he hadn't worked or achieved any kind of success to get the goodies, but that didn't bother him. As long as he got them. I bet he resented Helen terribly, and hated that her wealth and therefore her status, was greater than his. He had no respect for her as a successful woman, no appreciation of the writing talent and dedication that had brought her big rewards in a competitive field. Stewart with his 'get rich quick' mentality, clearly had no interest in hard work - his or anyone else's! Nor was he willing to share Helen's wealth. He didn't want a generous wife - he didn't want a wife at all, just her money, and full control of it! He really is a monster.
The latest murder charge has cleared up one mystery that often came up in Websleuths chats, during Helen's murder trial. Helen was popular and sociable, with family and an ever growing group of friends she was regularly in touch with. As a successful author she was also a public figure and active on social media. It was totally out of character for her to vanish, and not contact anyone ever again. How the hell did he think he'd get away with it?
It baffled many of us that such an unimpressive man had sufficient self-belief to plan and carry out such an audacious murder. But of course we now know exactly why he thought he'd kill Helen and face no consequences, carrying on his life as before - because he already had! There's only one thing more dangerous than a ruthless psychopath, and that's a ruthless psychopath who's already got away with murder.
It's astonishing this creep persuaded one, let alone two eligible women to commit to him. I wonder how many times a day he imagines the comfortable, enviable life he could be living now with either Diane or Helen?
