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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
jessie said:
What would be the point of that? The previous neighbour deposited her in the tank? IMOO the defence has a really difficult job here - stupid inferences that no one would believe. Desperation springs to mind. :sheesh:
Click to expand...

Not the previous owner, but a neighbour, or someone working in the neighbouring house, like a gardener. Could be this Joe or Nick.
 
Finally caught up, this man is more evil and calculating than anticipated!
 
Alyce said:
Just bringing this back up.........so why were the Defence questioning JB re the conversation ? JB has stuck to his story that it was only him, Helen and IS who were there when the remark re the body was made.

Were the defence trying to imply that this suggestion might have been heard by others ?
but the only other person there was the previous owner - and he had departed by the time the remark was made.
And, even if he had still been there, he used to use this line himself about great place to bury a body, so it was hardly something new to him.
Click to expand...
The defence are pointing out that nobody else can confirm this conversation happened thus implying that JB could be lying about it.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk
 
Ironside said:
The defence are pointing out that nobody else can confirm this conversation happened thus implying that JB could be lying about it.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good point.
But, we know that this line was something the previous owner was known to say to others. The fact that Helen's words were an exact copy of his, leads me to think that either the owner or a neighbour had made the comment to Helen.( and perhaps IS ) and she was repeating it.
In which case, one or other of them could be produced to confirm same ( I feel sure the neighbour will be a witness anyway, being as she is the one who told the police about the tank ) and to say if IS was present during their conversation.
I realise the defence could do the same thing and imply there was no one else there - but it stretches belief a bit more to keep insisting that witnesses are lying about this comment.
 
It's true that Zoplicone taste very bitter. The taste could be masked with something sweet though.
 
Alyce said:
Good point.
But, we know that this line was something the previous owner was known to say to others. The fact that Helen's words were an exact copy of his, leads me to think that either the owner or a neighbour had made the comment to Helen.( and perhaps IS ) and she was repeating it.
In which case, one or other of them could be produced to confirm same ( I feel sure the neighbour will be a witness anyway, being as she is the one who told the police about the tank ) and to say if IS was present during their conversation.
I realise the defence could do the same thing and imply there was no one else there - but it stretches belief a bit more to keep insisting that witnesses are lying about this comment.
Click to expand...

I found this a bit confusing because Helen's brother clearly said they went to the garage because the previous house owner was coming to collect a car he left there. I think there is a chance the conversation took place when that owner had arrived but I agree it is not very clear.
 
Hi Guys,
Just checking in! Went to court yesterday and today but was too tired to post yesterday- sorry:)
It seems like there is excellent reporting of almost every detail of the case although I have not had time to catch up on all posts here.
This is such a different case to the last one I went to on so many levels.
The defendant (IS) tends to just sit there looking as if all the wind has been knocked out of him. He does listen but often seems in his own world, gazing upwards or into the distance at nothing in particular. Occasionally he looks at notes but mostly just sits there, almost as a bystander, observing something that has little to do with him. He doesn`t takes notes, or shout or argue or constantly beckon his defence team, like the last lovely character(s). He looks depressed and in total shock.He doesn`t really react to anything that is being said, although he blinks rapidly at times e.g. when (on Tuesday), there was a description of protruding bones being seen when opening the "well" and at the mention of faeces.
The proceedings are very calm and controlled. Statements calmly given, questions calmly asked and answered. To be honest, it would seem in my opinion obviously, to be an open and shut case and therefore maybe no need for rigid/forceful/aggressive questioning and arguing. I would not like to be the defence team as they have so very little leverage and would perhaps have to resort to (as I think a previous poster said), contrived or fanciful explanations - grasping at straws is the expression that comes to mind.
Another poster (sorry too tired to scrawl back for names:) suggested that IS may not take the stand. I, too, think that is a possibility. Thinking long and hard about "wriggle room", I cannot think of anything that defence could suggest that wouldn`t immediately be very strongly (and simply) counteracted by established facts.
Excellent pieces of evidence e.g. Helen`s phone connecting briefly to the internet when IS went to the Broadstairs cottage (he had her phone with him!), the changing of the £600 standing order to £4000 (on the 3rd attempt!) the very same afternoon Helen died etc.
One thing I find strange is the information that was repeated in news reports over and over again about the fact that Helen left a note saying she needed time out - yet that note was never actually seen by anyone, never produced (and in fact clearly didn`t exist - Helen`s brother had asked IS repeatedly for it, first being told that he couldn`t find it and finally being told that he must have thrown it away!). Yet in many reports over the first few months it was stated as fact that she had left this note.

Also IS was asked by the police for his phone but said that he wanted to keep it with him as this is the way Helen would contact him. The phone was then "lost" by IS and neither his phone, nor Helen`s ever found.
I`m sure it has been mentioned, but just in case it hasn`t, there was some strange questioning of today`s witnesses of some bad feeling between some former business associates of Helen`s and her previous husband. Unsure why and where that line is going but am sure the questioning was for a purpose which will be evident later.
No court tomorrow as jury being taken to the house.
Lie in for me - yah!!
Michelle
 
Thanks Michelle! I think I can guess where that questioning about the business associates might be steered. They wouldn't be called Joe or Nick would they?
 
I think I've read that the defence barrister is popular with juries.
 
Tortoise said:
I think I've read that the defence barrister is popular with juries.
Click to expand...

Don`t know as I haven`t read/heard anything about that. But don`t think even Prince Harry could magic away such strong evidence!
It`s a gentler and calmer case, so far anyway, that the last one. All the witnesses have been so dignified as has Counsel and of course the Judge.
Any chance of you coming along one day? I can meet you somewhere en route and give you a lift!
Michelle
 
michelle230 said:
Don`t know as I haven`t read/heard anything about that. But don`t think even Prince Harry could magic away such strong evidence!
It`s a gentler and calmer case, so far anyway, that the last one. All the witnesses have been so dignified as has Counsel and of course the Judge.
Any chance of you coming along one day? I can meet you somewhere en route and give you a lift!
Michelle
Click to expand...

Ah that's so sweet of you. I'm tied up with some work for 3 or 4 weeks but once I've got it cleared, I'll message you and see if we can arrange that, depending on what stage the trial is at of course. Thank you!
 
michelle230 said:
One thing I find strange is the information that was repeated in news reports over and over again about the fact that Helen left a note saying she needed time out - yet that note was never actually seen by anyone, never produced (and in fact clearly didn`t exist - Helen`s brother had asked IS repeatedly for it, first being told that he couldn`t find it and finally being told that he must have thrown it away!). Yet in many reports over the first few months it was stated as fact that she had left this note.

Also IS was asked by the police for his phone but said that he wanted to keep it with him as this is the way Helen would contact him. The phone was then "lost" by IS and neither his phone, nor Helen`s ever found.
I`m sure it has been mentioned, but just in case it hasn`t, there was some strange questioning of today`s witnesses of some bad feeling between some former business associates of Helen`s and her previous husband. Unsure why and where that line is going but am sure the questioning was for a purpose which will be evident later.
No court tomorrow as jury being taken to the house.
Lie in for me - yah!!
Michelle
Click to expand...

Respectfully Snipped By Me [RSBM]

Thanks Michelle. Thanks for taking the time to attend and tell us what you saw in court. Your descriptions of Ian Stewart's physical demeanor/posture etc. give us a much better picture than 'he is wearing a pale blue shirt' type descriptions from the press [to be fair they may be restricted by custom or rules as to what they are allowed to say].

The reporting has been pretty good [imo] but I had not picked up on the detail you mention about any alleged bad feeling between Helen, her first husband and any of their former business partners. The businesses were mentioned but no more detail than that IIRC, so thanks for that extra snippet in particular.

I seem to recall we did discuss the issue re the ambiguity about the note much earlier in the case/thread. It was never clear to me that anyone had seen the alleged note. It's great to finally get an answer about that.

Re Helen's friend Tracey who was questioned today, something I read yesterday led me to believe the 'conversation'/'duscussion' with Tracey re wedding venues etc had been a vocal conversation by telephone.

It is now far less clear to me that they spoke in person [e.g on the phone] on the morning Helen apparently 'disappeared' and it is possible they only 'discussed' things by email. If that is the case then I am wondering why anyone can be so sure those emails were legitimately written by Helen.

Thanks everyone for posting the during the day's proceedings.
 
michelle230 said:
Hi Guys,
Just checking in! Went to court yesterday and today but was too tired to post yesterday- sorry:)
It seems like there is excellent reporting of almost every detail of the case although I have not had time to catch up on all posts here.
This is such a different case to the last one I went to on so many levels.
The defendant (IS) tends to just sit there looking as if all the wind has been knocked out of him. He does listen but often seems in his own world, gazing upwards or into the distance at nothing in particular. Occasionally he looks at notes but mostly just sits there, almost as a bystander, observing something that has little to do with him. He doesn`t takes notes, or shout or argue or constantly beckon his defence team, like the last lovely character(s). He looks depressed and in total shock.He doesn`t really react to anything that is being said, although he blinks rapidly at times e.g. when (on Tuesday), there was a description of protruding bones being seen when opening the "well" and at the mention of faeces.
The proceedings are very calm and controlled. Statements calmly given, questions calmly asked and answered. To be honest, it would seem in my opinion obviously, to be an open and shut case and therefore maybe no need for rigid/forceful/aggressive questioning and arguing. I would not like to be the defence team as they have so very little leverage and would perhaps have to resort to (as I think a previous poster said), contrived or fanciful explanations - grasping at straws is the expression that comes to mind.
Another poster (sorry too tired to scrawl back for names:) suggested that IS may not take the stand. I, too, think that is a possibility. Thinking long and hard about "wriggle room", I cannot think of anything that defence could suggest that wouldn`t immediately be very strongly (and simply) counteracted by established facts.
Excellent pieces of evidence e.g. Helen`s phone connecting briefly to the internet when IS went to the Broadstairs cottage (he had her phone with him!), the changing of the £600 standing order to £4000 (on the 3rd attempt!) the very same afternoon Helen died etc.
One thing I find strange is the information that was repeated in news reports over and over again about the fact that Helen left a note saying she needed time out - yet that note was never actually seen by anyone, never produced (and in fact clearly didn`t exist - Helen`s brother had asked IS repeatedly for it, first being told that he couldn`t find it and finally being told that he must have thrown it away!). Yet in many reports over the first few months it was stated as fact that she had left this note.

Also IS was asked by the police for his phone but said that he wanted to keep it with him as this is the way Helen would contact him. The phone was then "lost" by IS and neither his phone, nor Helen`s ever found.
I`m sure it has been mentioned, but just in case it hasn`t, there was some strange questioning of today`s witnesses of some bad feeling between some former business associates of Helen`s and her previous husband. Unsure why and where that line is going but am sure the questioning was for a purpose which will be evident later.
No court tomorrow as jury being taken to the house.
Lie in for me - yah!!
Michelle
Click to expand...

Hi Michelle, thank you so much, once again, for giving us the insider view of what is happening at Court. Even though the reporting coverage has been good, it is nowhere near like having someone there, so it is much appreciated that you are sharing with us.
If it were not so tragic I would laugh at the three attempts to change the SO, clearly desperate to get this done on the day so that he could pretend Helen had done it just before she * went away *.

I think the police were always a bit guarded re the note, they would never actually say whether it was written or typed and , interestingly, when they did finally release the wording, they ommitted the last line, which we now know was * dont try to contact me *. I think they were on to IS from the outset.
The business associates - yes, as Tortoise has said, can see where that is going - step forward Joe and Nick.

Am pleased to hear that IS looks somewhat defeated and from the sounds of it I do think it is possible he wont give evidence. Initially I thought he would, I thought he would be very confident and willing to tell his - in his mind - very clever story.
But I guess now that he is seeing the extent of the case against him ( I would think it's one thing if your lawyer tells you, but quite another when it is being said, out loud, in front of a Jury ) he is realising that he cant explain away the mountain of evidence.
Thanks again for the great updates
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 141 more.
Total: 1,888 (members: 142, guests: 1,746)

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
1,746
Total visitors
1,888
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,681
Messages
18,190,757
Members
233,497
Latest member
phonekace14
Back
Top