GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #1

[KarenUK]

The trial of Ian Stewart, who denies murdering his partner - Royston author Helen Bailey - has been adjourned as the defendant was not well enough to attend court.

The mother of the children's author was due to give evidence today.

However, the judge at St Albans Crown Court said the trial would continue tomorrow.








http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-e...well'&&ns_fee=0#post_587f43a3e4b0679f0e80270d

Her poor mother has probably been building herself up over today, I'd imagine a sleepless night or to over it at least - and now its postponed. I might be being cynical here but my first thought was that IS is playing games.... Or is too ashamed to face her mother (as he should be!)

 

[Cherwell]

Hope she is able to provide some damning evidence - so far, nothing really that I have heard from her friends or family has been all that damning.

Nothing spectacular yet, but Stewart's lies are gradually being exposed.

 

[pinklilies]

Her poor mother has probably been building herself up over today, I'd imagine a sleepless night or to over it at least - and now its postponed. I might be being cynical here but my first thought was that IS is playing games.... Or is too ashamed to face her mother (as he should be!)

I think the fact she was prepared to take the stand shows her strength. I think this episode may only serve to make her more determined to say what she has to say.

 

[Alyce]

A bit more detail on the Judge's statement this morning


This morning the jury at St Albans Crown Court were told that Stewart was 'in no fit state to listen to evidence.'

Judge Andrew Bright QC, said: "He is in no fit state to listen to evidence, concentrate on the evidence and with the witness we are going to hear from is a lady called Elaine Bailey, Helen Bailey's mother, and she is giving evidence via video link in her home.

"He is not in a fit state to do that."

The jury were sent home following the judge's comments and it is not known whether Stewart will be well enough to attend tomorrow.



Read more at http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co....0067328-detail/story.html#0hlCJsVer77zRpqv.99



my note - I am sure Helen's mother is called Eileen, not Elaine....good to see it is a home video link and the poor woman has not had to travel down here

 

[Alyce]

I think the fact she was prepared to take the stand shows her strength. I think this episode may only serve to make her more determined to say what she has to say.

Just added a link from Herts Mercury and it seems Mrs Bailey was to give evidence via video link, so at least she is in the comfort of her own home, not in a hotel near to the court.

 

[mrjitty]

Critical witness for providing character?

Well they just have to continue establish key facts and anticipate the defence nonsense.

So presume she will be key on the drugging

But also key in terms of Helen was stable, no life drama, no big concerns.

 

[MillyM]

Those waiting for the case to be called at St Albans Crown Court were told it had been adjourned as Stewart was "too unwell to listen to or concentrate on the evidence".


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/article12470864.ece?token=1925205401

Are we building up to him too ill to take the stand?

 

[Tortoise]

Just thinking over things last night, and would be more than happy to be corrected on this ...but

I very much get the feeling that Helen was the outsider within her home in Royston.
We have been told, by JB, that Helen was very fond of ISs sons - but I have not heard any remark from them, or from the g/f which would indicate that they liked her.
OS said when he knew that Helen and his father were to marry, he was pleased...but that is all I can see.
Jamie, on the night of April 11, does not ask IS where Helen is, even though he acknowledges in court that she must have been home because her cars were there. I know we have discussed this and it may have been quite normal to know that if Helen was not around, then everyone knew she was either working or had gone to bed...but I still think it indicates a lack of interest in her, that no comment was made.
OSs g/f does not seem overly keen, only mentioning that Helen was a nervous driver, that Helen didnt acknowledge her on the night of April 9 and that Helen had had an argument about her ( the gf) staying over at the house.
Also I noted the gfs comments about how she had been spending more time at Hartwell Lodge, cooking for OS and IS and that Jamie had joined them for the meals. Again, Helen is not mentioned.
As I say, we only get fleeting glimpses and not the whole picture, but it has made me feel sad that here was a woman who had bought a beautiful house for this family, paid the bills, provided the food, cooked for them and cleaned up after them ( from her book ) but does not seem to have received much if anything in return.

I agree Alyce.

I was struck by this statement

“In the end we went while Helen was missing. We wanted to get away from the house as it was very different without Boris there”, he added.

Jamie reiterated to the court that there was nothing unusual about his dad on the evening of April 11 - the date of Helen’s alleged murder

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...bailey-murder-trial-week-12452783?98797?98098

 

[Alyce]

Are we building up to him too ill to take the stand?

I have always thought that he has to take the stand, in order to attempt to show that he is not guilty and explain his alternative Nick and Joe theory.
Now, after today's last minute illness ( and it had to be last minute otherwise the Jury would not have turned up ) I am not so sure. I could quite well see him beginning a series of ill health days in order to delay proceedings.
In fact, I am thinking worse than that and he may be building up to not being well enough for the trial to continue at all, which is why I wondered what the rules are on that.

I know ( as per my earlier comment ) that a defendant is allowed to * not attend * if they choose to do so...but I do not know what the protocol is if a defendant claims - continually - to be unwell and unfit to attend, but at the same time, states that he does wish to be present at the trial. Presumably then, his human rights ( insert rolling eye smilie here ) kick in and they cannot proceed ?

 

[MillyM]

I wouldn't be surprised to hear at any time, either now or in the future, that he's topped himself.

 

[Cherwell]

A bit more detail on the Judge's statement this morning


This morning the jury at St Albans Crown Court were told that Stewart was 'in no fit state to listen to evidence.'

Judge Andrew Bright QC, said: "He is in no fit state to listen to evidence, concentrate on the evidence and with the witness we are going to hear from is a lady called Elaine Bailey, Helen Bailey's mother, and she is giving evidence via video link in her home.

"He is not in a fit state to do that."

The jury were sent home following the judge's comments and it is not known whether Stewart will be well enough to attend tomorrow.

I find this phrase quite striking. Not "ill", not "unwell", but "in no fit state". And it's repeated.

It's a phrase that might be used about someone who is drunk. It suggest to me that Stewart himself is responsible for his condition. Perhaps he has made a suicide attempt.

 

[MillyM]

On this point about the septic tank and who said it was perfect place to hide body, were they just repeating what previous owner might have told them?

"Nicki McGrath, who is staying with her mother at the next door property, said: 'We told them the last person who lived there used to joke that he had this ideal place to dump a body."

http://dailym.ai/29Jn7wk

 

[pinklilies]

Deleted.
Changed my mind....

 

[Interested Bystander]

I am very time poor today but I found this. Maybe helpful, maybe not. It is quite a long document and I have only pulled this from it. There could be other important information that I have not read.

http://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/mental-health-and-the-courts/#.WH9XtE1vhMQ
The Crown Court has special powers. First of all, a judgewill decide if you are unfit to plead. If that is the case, there will be a'trial of facts' to decide whether you did the act you are accused of. TheCourt can then decide how to deal with you appropriately, in much the same wayas if you pleaded or had been found guilty in an ordinary trial. As well as ahospital order (see above), the Court can make a 'supervision order' or orderyour 'absolute discharge'. The idea of a supervision order is to allow you toreceive support and treatment, usually with the help of a social worker.Absolute discharge might be ordered where, for example, your alleged offence istrivial and no further action is necessary. (Criminal Procedure (Insanity andUnfitness to Plead) Act 1991, and the Domestic Violence and Victims Act 2004which both amend previous legislation.)

 

[Alyce]

On this point about the septic tank and who said it was perfect place to hide body, were they just repeating what previous owner might have told them?

"Nicki McGrath, who is staying with her mother at the next door property, said: 'We told them the last person who lived there used to joke that he had this ideal place to dump a body."

http://dailym.ai/29Jn7wk

I think it very likely they were just repeating the * old joke * that had been said by the previous owner

 

[MillyM]

The saying that keeps coming into my head a lot these last days is: 'oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.'

All this with 'men in black', mysterious 'paperwork', incidents in cars, phones and all the rest, I would have gone for a more 'simple' scenario.

They get married, everything is sown up watertight with wills and her life insurance etc. so that he stands to profit very nicely on her death.

One weekend in winter during one of those very wet and windy periods, they - or he prompts it - go down to stay at the Broadstairs house. While he sits in the car, she takes the dog for a walk with a ball. The wind and rain is lashing quite strongly, and blows the ball towards the cliff edge. The dog runs after it, dragging her on the lead, but she slips and she and dog go over edge. He is sitting in car, immobilised, watching this take place in a matter of seconds before he can react.

That's his 'story', of course. In truth, he pushed her over. But nothing can be proved. He plays the distraught widower, while cashing in financially.

Now wouldn't that be a lot 'easier'?

I again, come back to this seeming sense of urgency that we see all of a sudden.

I also would like to know more about this 'paperwork' he alleges the two heavies were after. They must have given some clue (if they actually exist of course).

"The jury heard that following his arrest in December, he told his son Oliver that two men, Nick and Joe, had repeatedly visited the property demanding paperwork and had assaulting him on one occasion.

He claimed one of the men had given him a phone and forced him to follow certain instructions, the court heard.

Oliver Stewart, 21, told Stewart’s trial at St Albans crown court: “When he was telling me about these people, I could see that he was not joking, I could see the fear. Purely by him telling me that, that was the road I can see he was going down.”

Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer said: “What road was that?”

He replied: “That they were linked to the taking of Helen.”

Stewart denies charges of murder, fraud, preventing a lawful burial and three counts of perverting the course of justice.

The 21-year-old said his father had made the claims for the first time when he had gone to visit him while he was being held in custody last year.

He told the court: “He just made me aware that there were these two guys, Nick and Joe, he said they came to the house on a couple of occasions when we were away. He said originally when they were coming they wanted to find out from Helen about some paperwork; apparently they came to find this paperwork. Helen claimed to know nothing about of it but they seemed to be fairly sure she would have known something of it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...hed-for-sale-of-her-property?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[Cherwell]

I cannot grasp why OS or anyone else would believe the *advertiser censored*-and-bull story about "Joe and Nick".

Why wouldn't Stewart - and more to the point, why wouldn't Helen - tell the police about the threats and assault?
Why wouldn't he warn his sons about these men at the time?
Why wouldn't he tell the police about these dodgy characters as soon as Helen's absence began to cause concern?
Why would he wait over six months after his arrest to mention it at all?

 

[snoopydog]

I have always thought that he has to take the stand, in order to attempt to show that he is not guilty and explain his alternative Nick and Joe theory.
Now, after today's last minute illness ( and it had to be last minute otherwise the Jury would not have turned up ) I am not so sure. I could quite well see him beginning a series of ill health days in order to delay proceedings.
In fact, I am thinking worse than that and he may be building up to not being well enough for the trial to continue at all, which is why I wondered what the rules are on that.

I know ( as per my earlier comment ) that a defendant is allowed to * not attend * if they choose to do so...but I do not know what the protocol is if a defendant claims - continually - to be unwell and unfit to attend, but at the same time, states that he does wish to be present at the trial. Presumably then, his human rights ( insert rolling eye smilie here ) kick in and they cannot proceed ?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/termination_of_proceedings/ for info

 

[MillyM]

I cannot grasp why OS or anyone else would believe the *advertiser censored*-and-bull story about "Joe and Nick".

Why wouldn't Stewart - and more to the point, why wouldn't Helen - tell the police about the threats and assault?
Why wouldn't he warn his sons about these men at the time?
Why wouldn't he tell the police about these dodgy characters as soon as Helen's absence began to cause concern?
Why would he wait over six months after his arrest to mention it at all?

Unless they had something on him that was so bad/criminal he would NOT want either the police or his sons knowing about...?

 

[Alyce]

They get married, everything is sown up watertight with wills and her life insurance etc. so that he stands to profit very nicely on her death.

I agree Milly.

The more we hear of the evidence, the more I am starting to think that the killing was not originally planned to happen on this day.

He had had an operation and was recovering - better to wait a few more weeks, when in better shape.
Less people styaing at the house in another few weeks - more opportunity to kill, even during the night, and dispose of the body at night.
Property sale would have gone through ( possibly ) money in account, ready and waiting for him.
Easier options available. The tablets were having an effect, a few more dosage increases and Helen might have ended up having an accident driving her car or when out walking ( as per your Broadstairs scenario ).

The one thing I am sure of is that he did intend to kill Helen to obtain all the money.

Three wedding venues had been *lost * to use his word. Most unusual. I can only guess that Helen had made provisional bookings but then been unable to confirm due to ISs health scare and the space was lost.

I wonder - did this bother IS because he thought that the delay might cause Helen to change her mind.
Or, did he help to create the situation whereby the bookings were lost, because he actually didnt want the bother of having to go through with the marriage, he just wanted her to die, asap, because he was going to inherit anyway.