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

[mrazda71]

So, back to the enquiry about rehoming Boris. Can anyone recall if this was a person who actually spoke to Helen, or could it have been an electronic enquiry? Why was the FB post that mentioned this taken down?

If it was anyone other than Helen making the enquiry it could be relevant. Was it a couple of weeks before 11th April?

Was it to set up a false trail of Helen deciding/planning to disappear? I can't remember who the poster was who knew about this, and I'm being lazy not re-reading the thread.

I think the notion of a call enquiring about re-homing Boris was false, Chinese whispers or at most, Helen had made a phone call to a kennels (possibly about having Boris while they were on the planned holiday?) And someone else put 2 and 2 together and came up with 7 ...

 

[michelle230]

Thank you Batface. That clarifies things a lot.

 

[michelle230]

Concerned that if...and of course we don`t know yet.......he is found guilty, a murder charge as opposed to a manslaughter charge may be difficult to prove as he had a lot of time to "clean up"/decomposition of body etc, although it would also appear that the police know many things that we don`t.

 

[Tortoise]

Concerned that if...and of course we don`t know yet.......he is found guilty, a murder charge as opposed to a manslaughter charge may be difficult to prove as he had a lot of time to "clean up"/decomposition of body etc, although it would also appear that the police know many things that we don`t.

I think it would be exceptionally hard for the defence to convince the court that it was manslaughter. There would need to be a detailed convincing account, and there would appear to be no logical explanation for covering up an accident, not summoning an ambulance, hiding Helen's body, killing her dog at the same time, and perverting the course of justice.

If his explanation falls short it's murder.

 

[BatFace]

I may be wrong, but didn't the person from the animal shelter post about the phone call earlier on this thread?

 

[Tortoise]

I don't remember it batface if they did. I seem to remember it was someone that knew that person.

 

[Alyce]

I have just been looking at the fb page that Helen's friends have set up, it seems that Helen had contacted a dog rescue before she went missing. According to her friends the police have a list of the last phone calls she made and the rescues number is among them. The rescue apparently confirmed this on a local news page and have put out an appeal asking if anyone local has taken Boris in. Of course there are various reasons for contacting a rescue but for me this does lend weight to the theory that Helen was planning to disappear or leave her home for a while. We don't know if Boris is with Helen or not, but I do think it will be easier to trace her if he is.

Just bringing this back up...this is the info re the rescue centre

 

[Alyce]

As far as I know the police have not released any further details about the calls Helen made. The woman that runs the rescue put up a post asking if anyone local had taken Boris in, but that post has now been removed. According to this article Helen's partner was out running errands when she left. Apparently, she did have her phone with her but it has not been used http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-36142437

And this one

 

[Legally Bland]

From Cagney's link to rightmove, for reference just in case it disappears.

Site plan from a refused planning application in 2010 (prior to HB living there) to build a bungalow in the back garden. http://documentportal.north-herts.g...aspx?doc_class_code=DC&case_number=10/01174/1

 

[MillyM]

Did IS like the dog? Could a reason be that he had been pressuring her to get rid of it, hence her rehoming query just to see whether there may be someone local who would take in, which in the end she didn't act on, perhaps therefore being a bone of contention between them?

 

[faybradshaw]

Did IS like the dog? Could a reason be that he had been pressuring her to get rid of it, hence her rehoming query just to see whether there may be someone local who would take in, which in the end she didn't act on, perhaps therefore being a bone of contention between them?

It could be that she had intentions of leaving the house to get away from Stewart, whether as in a break or permanently and needed a temporary place for Boris to stay while she found other accommodation. I cannot see her putting Stewart before Boris.

 

[mrazda71]

Did IS like the dog? Could a reason be that he had been pressuring her to get rid of it, hence her rehoming query just to see whether there may be someone local who would take in, which in the end she didn't act on, perhaps therefore being a bone of contention between them?

We don't know that there WAS a re-homing enquiry, that's just rumour from someone trying to make it fit with Helen going off on her own because a kennels number had been called by Helen prior to her going missing. She could've been offering a donation or looking to take on another dog herself.

 

[Legally Bland]

I'm not shooting down anyone's ideas as I think anything is possible, but I'm struggling with the idea that someone couldn't put up with a tiny dachshund for the sake of a relationship.

Unless he had a really severe allergy I can't see that it would be much of a bind. I'm sure HB would have taken great care of Boris without any help from IS.

Saying that, I'm not expecting any kind of explanation that I would have any empathy with.

 

[mrazda71]

I'm not shooting down anyone's ideas as I think anything is possible, but I'm struggling with the idea that someone couldn't put up with a tiny dachshund for the sake of a relationship.

Unless he had a really severe allergy I can't see that it would be much of a bind. I'm sure HB would have taken great care of Boris without any help from IS.

Saying that, I'm not expecting any kind of explanation that I would have any empathy with.

I agree, I'm sure if Ian did have a problem with Boris, then it would've come up earlier in their relationship.

 

[Satchie]

It could be that she had intentions of leaving the house to get away from Stewart, whether as in a break or permanently and needed a temporary place for Boris to stay while she found other accommodation. I cannot see her putting Stewart before Boris.

I read on her blog that she owned Broadstairs herself, she and her husband bought it 10 years before he died. And she must have had quite a lot of money left from the sale of her Highgate house. So there was no problem for her if she wanted to get away from IS, and no reason not to take Boris. As someone else said, perhaps that's what she told him she was going to do, and that's where he got his coverup story. Only in reality, he wouldn't let her go, he'd rather kill her. JMO

 

[michelle230]

Hopefully you're right Tortoise. I just worried that in the absence of any witnesses he could claim absolutely anything e.g "self defence - we got into an argument and she attacked me" type scenario

 

[Alyce]

Hopefully you're right Tortoise. I just worried that in the absence of any witnesses he could claim absolutely anything e.g "self defence - we got into an argument and she attacked me" type scenario

Yes he could, and possibly will. But he ( presuming he is the guilty party, and there's a small field to choose from imo ) still has to then explain why he thought the best option , following his self defence killing, was to kill Boris and put both bodies into the septic tank. I know that Juries look only at what is presented in the courtroom and are told to put all emotion aside, but I do feel the fact that he disposed of Helen and Boris in such an appalling way is going to weigh heavily against him.

 

[ZaZara]

Yes he could, and possibly will. But he ( presuming he is the guilty party, and there's a small field to choose from imo ) still has to then explain why he thought the best option , following his self defence killing, was to kill Boris and put both bodies into the septic tank. I know that Juries look only at what is presented in the courtroom and are told to put all emotion aside, but I do feel the fact that he disposed of Helen and Boris in such an appalling way is going to weigh heavily against him.

Claiming self defence against a miniature dog like Boris ....... :facepalm:

Whatever the cause may have been that led to the sad events, whether it was spontaneous or planned or a mixture of both, his behaviour AFTERWARDS was rational and very calculating.

 

[Alyce]

I was thinking over this case last night, about 1am, as I sat outside, waiting for the temperature to drop ( it didn't ) and I got to puzzling over the money.

I do think he ( or whoever it was ) planned this event. Possibly there was a deadline looming, as in Helen starting to put changes into place ( which may have included her Will ) so he had to move fast.

So he planned and took advantage of the moment/day. All very cold and calculating.

But the money side puzzles me.

He doesn't appear to be stupid but surely he would have known that any activity on Helen's bank accounts would trigger action by the police. And whilst I think he could have made a possible excuse for taking out some money, by saying that he had a cash flow problem and bills etc had to be paid and Helen would understand ! I don't see how he could have justified taking out a large amount of cash ( to paraphrase the police ).

So my question is really, why did he have to take out a large amount of cash at that time ? Was he just stupid and greedy and didnt think the police would say anything ? or did he have an urgent need for the money which took precedence over his careful planning in every other aspect.

 

[Sweep]

I was thinking over this case last night, about 1am, as I sat outside, waiting for the temperature to drop ( it didn't ) and I got to puzzling over the money.

I do think he ( or whoever it was ) planned this event. Possibly there was a deadline looming, as in Helen starting to put changes into place ( which may have included her Will ) so he had to move fast.

So he planned and took advantage of the moment/day. All very cold and calculating.

But the money side puzzles me.

He doesn't appear to be stupid but surely he would have known that any activity on Helen's bank accounts would trigger action by the police. And whilst I think he could have made a possible excuse for taking out some money, by saying that he had a cash flow problem and bills etc had to be paid and Helen would understand ! I don't see how he could have justified taking out a large amount of cash ( to paraphrase the police ).

So my question is really, why did he have to take out a large amount of cash at that time ? Was he just stupid and greedy and didnt think the police would say anything ? or did he have an urgent need for the money which took precedence over his careful planning in every other aspect.

Hi, first post here but have been following since the beginning.

One thought on the money.

If you recall from her book, HB had a secret stash of money, It could have been cash, but also could have been in a separate bank account, could this be the money that was taken?

“I never wanted to have to stay in a relationship because I couldn’t afford to leave, and even during my marriage I always had what I called my ‘F-Off Fund’, a sum of money squirreled away so that if I ever needed to leave and do my own thing, I could.”

Surely IS would have had to have take/hidden this money, so as to fit in with the note and the story of her going to Broadstairs. The Police would have known about the money and the fact they didn't find it when they first searched the house, can only point to IS taking it? Media reports make it sound like the money was taken recently, but is that certain?