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

[Satchie]

The other question I have about taking the money out of an ATM is why/how could he have her bank card? People don't have spare debit cards they keep at home. If he used her debit card then that's proof she didn't take it with her, and yet it hadn't shown up during previous searches.

I have a possible theory that he wanted it to look like Helen had removed money from her account, and he did this when he supposedly went to Majorca. It would have been easy for him to go somewhere else, where the ATM's don't have cameras (or he didn't think they did), and withdraw the money. Idea was police would believe Helen was in Croatia or something. But LE were able to prove it was him, and not Helen, withdrawing the money. As I say, just a theory. The other options is he is in serious financial difficulty, or that he'd become tired of trying to cover up and just wanted it to be over.

 

[Tortoise]

The other question I have about taking the money out of an ATM is why/how could he have her bank card? People don't have spare debit cards they keep at home. If he used her debit card then that's proof she didn't take it with her, and yet it hadn't shown up during previous searches.

I have a possible theory that he wanted it to look like Helen had removed money from her account, and he did this when he supposedly went to Majorca. It would have been easy for him to go somewhere else, where the ATM's don't have cameras (or he didn't think they did), and withdraw the money. Idea was police would believe Helen was in Croatia or something. But LE were able to prove it was him, and not Helen, withdrawing the money. As I say, just a theory. The other options is he is in serious financial difficulty, or that he'd become tired of trying to cover up and just wanted it to be over.

I think that's probably it.

He told police Helen had taken her handbag, containing purse/bank cards etc, then her card is used and somehow or other the police get confirmation that it was him using it. So they arrested him on the basis that he lied about her purse and bag being missing, while actually being in possession of her one bank card.

That probably also explains why it was said that it was previously thought she had her handbag with her.

 

[Tortoise]

If he used the card on holiday, I believe he was away for two weeks from 11th June, so that would be returning on 25th June, they arrested him on 11th July - so the police had 2 weeks to investigate the card usage and obtain cctv footage.

 

[Alyce]

The other question I have about taking the money out of an ATM is why/how could he have her bank card? People don't have spare debit cards they keep at home. If he used her debit card then that's proof she didn't take it with her, and yet it hadn't shown up during previous searches.

I have a possible theory that he wanted it to look like Helen had removed money from her account, and he did this when he supposedly went to Majorca. It would have been easy for him to go somewhere else, where the ATM's don't have cameras (or he didn't think they did), and withdraw the money. Idea was police would believe Helen was in Croatia or something. But LE were able to prove it was him, and not Helen, withdrawing the money. As I say, just a theory. The other options is he is in serious financial difficulty, or that he'd become tired of trying to cover up and just wanted it to be over.

The police did mention Helen's bank accounts, plural, so she would likely have had more than one debit card.

I think your idea re him taking money out whilst he was in Majorca is very possible. What a great way to try and make it look like Helen was there - and it might also explain the large amount taken out - to look as though Helen didnt want to be taking out money every week and leave a trail of where she was, so took a large amount in one go.

Eta. Plus it was his one opportunity to take out money without being traced, or so he thought...so that would be the other reason he took such a large amount

 

[Tortoise]

The police did mention Helen's bank accounts, plural, so she would likely have had more than one debit card.

I think your idea re him taking money out whilst he was in Majorca is very possible. What a great way to try and make it look like Helen was there - and it might also explain the large amount taken out - to look as though Helen didnt want to be taking out money every week and leave a trail of where she was, so took a large amount in one go.

Although bank cards usually have a daily cash withdrawal limit, so I'm wondering if it was several maximum withdrawals spread over a period. Bit of a tell tale sign though if they happened in Majorca while he was there. Wonder if he travelled around a bit, took a few trips to the mainland.

 

[Tortoise]

Do you think it likely Helen told him her pin? I can't think of any reason she would have done.

 

[Tortoise]

He got careless. Thank goodness.

 

[Satchie]

Do you think it likely Helen told him her pin? I can't think of any reason she would have done.

If she had her pins and passwords written/recorded somewhere, he may have been able to find them. I know I have them all buried online, I worry that I'll go completely blank on something at some key moment. She may have told him how to get access to her list in an emergency, having probably gone through those challenges when her husband died.

 

[Alyce]

Do you think it likely Helen told him her pin? I can't think of any reason she would have done.

She may have had a note of them somewhere. The police said he had all her email Log In's so he may have had the pins or known where to find them.


ETA sorry Satchie, didnt see yours before I posted. OH and I have all this kind of info stored and we know how to access each others in case of need.
Good point re JS, Helen would have been careful to ensure people ( such as IS ) knew where to find info.

 

[mrazda71]

Do you think it likely Helen told him her pin? I can't think of any reason she would have done.

My 4 kids all know my pin number ...

 

[alreetlike]

My partner and I know each other's pins, after many years of "it's your turn to go to the ATM...."

Although both of us permanently have no money so we wouldn't do very well if we tried to rob each other.

 

[mbmc]

My 4 kids all know my pin number ...

Me too mrazda71, well two of my four know mine plus my two grandsons, it is quite usual for me to say can you get some money out for me, or when my grandsons come to stay they go off to the shops for goodies with my card, I think within most families it is usual to know pin no's, so IS knowing Helen's would not be unusual, IMO.

I have a problem with motive....of course it is all speculation but I struggle to think this was about money. IS would have to be very stupid to think that if he reported Helen missing he would be able to manage her financial affairs, even with power of attorney, as has been rumoured, (not confirmed) It is a minefield out there legally using missing persons money. I have myself have had power of attorney and it is not easy.

If there was a will in his favour then he would still have to wait for years (is it 5 or 7 ?) for Helen to be declared deceased, a longtime to upkeep their home without her income, so therefore I am at a loss.............where was IS coming from?

Is he stupid? drawing out money, did he think this was in the premise of power of attorney (not confirmed) or was he complacent in thinking 3 months on he was safe?

 

[faybradshaw]

Do you think IS has found himself a top lawyer - how would he be able to afford one?

 

[Alyce]

Depends what sort of POA he had. Might have been a simple one that allowed him to access one of Helen's accounts, for the purpose of whatever conditions Helen chose to stipulate in the POA - eg: paying bills when need be.

I am thinking he somehow overstepped the mark ( if indeed a POA was set up for him ) and the police used this as an excuse to make the arrest on suspicion of. And that gave them carte blanche with the house and grounds.
If there was no POA, or not one that provided such permissions, then the amount of money taken probably gave the police the excuse they needed to act.

 

[Alyce]

Do you think IS has found himself a top lawyer - how would he be able to afford one?

Although he may be cash poor, he does have assets in the form of the house and his MG. We dont know how much of the property he owned - assume 50% - and that would provide him with a healthy chunk of money to pay for his defence.

 

[mrazda71]

Me too mrazda71, well two of my four know mine plus my two grandsons, it is quite usual for me to say can you get some money out for me, or when my grandsons come to stay they go off to the shops for goodies with my card, I think within most families it is usual to know pin no's, so IS knowing Helen's would not be unusual, IMO.

I have a problem with motive....of course it is all speculation but I struggle to think this was about money. IS would have to be very stupid to think that if he reported Helen missing he would be able to manage her financial affairs, even with power of attorney, as has been rumoured, (not confirmed) It is a minefield out there legally using missing persons money. I have myself have had power of attorney and it is not easy.

If there was a will in his favour then he would still have to wait for years (is it 5 or 7 ?) for Helen to be declared deceased, a longtime to upkeep their home without her income, so therefore I am at a loss.............where was IS coming from?

Is he stupid? drawing out money, did he think this was in the premise of power of attorney (not confirmed) or was he complacent in thinking 3 months on he was safe?

My youngest is 7 and even he knows my pin number! 😂

I've followed many cases on here and from all my experience, every case is more simple and more shocking than you could ever imagine.

Becky Watts murder for instance, before we knew any facts - there were over imaginative theories that the arrested were running 1, a child sex ring 2, a drug dealing operation 3, were having an affair - that Becky had discovered and was threatening to tell about and in the end it turned out to be plain old jealously and rivalry (I'm still not 100% convinced on the sexual motive and think that could've been coincidence which didn't go in their favour though I wasn't there to know if more was said in court that wasn't reported.

And there there was the never could've imagined it - the dismemberment.


As for Ian, I'm not convinced she was killed for financial gain either ... I'm thinking jealousy (she was maybe preoccupied with the 5th anniversary of her husbands death) or maybe they rowed about staying in Royston or moving to London or anything. I dont believe it was about Boris ...

Only time has the possibility of telling.

 

[mrazda71]

Also, one other point.

None of us KNOW Helen and while I agree, she seems from what I've seen to be lovely and the kind of person we'd all like to be friends with BUT we didn't live with her, maybe (like many creative types) she had a firey temper. It's difficult not to decide immediately upon arrest that Ian Stewart is guilty but it IS innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Satchie]

I have a problem with motive....of course it is all speculation but I struggle to think this was about money. IS would have to be very stupid to think that if he reported Helen missing he would be able to manage her financial affairs, even with power of attorney, as has been rumoured, (not confirmed) It is a minefield out there legally using missing persons money. I have myself have had power of attorney and it is not easy.

If there was a will in his favour then he would still have to wait for years (is it 5 or 7 ?) for Helen to be declared deceased, a longtime to upkeep their home without her income, so therefore I am at a loss.............where was IS coming from?

Is he stupid? drawing out money, did he think this was in the premise of power of attorney (not confirmed) or was he complacent in thinking 3 months on he was safe?

Good points thank you. IMO you're right, if it was just about money, it wouldn't have been worth the risk.

I've read some criminology, there is a crude distinction made between expressive vs instrumental homocide. Instrumental homocide is committed purely as a tactic to get something eg to silence a witness, or to rob them. Spousal homocides are usually classed as expressive, because they are almost always primarily motivated by a desire to hurt the other person.

I think where money might have fit into that is, Helen being seen as in some way having power because of her money, or threatening to deprive him of the lifestyle he was enjoying in order to move to London, or something else completely, may have elicited anger and wanting to hurt her so badly that she could never hurt him again. Being primarily an expression of feelings, it's not at all rational.

 

[Tortoise]

Good points thank you. IMO you're right, if it was just about money, it wouldn't have been worth the risk.

I've read some criminology, there is a crude distinction made between expressive vs instrumental homocide. Instrumental homocide is committed purely as a tactic to get something eg to silence a witness, or to rob them. Spousal homocides are usually classed as expressive, because they are almost always primarily motivated by a desire to hurt the other person.

I think where money might have fit into that is, Helen being seen as in some way having power because of her money, or threatening to deprive him of the lifestyle he was enjoying in order to move to London, or something else completely, may have elicited anger and wanting to hurt her so badly that she could never hurt him again. Being primarily an expression of feelings, it's not at all rational.

I agree.

I believe he has given us the answer anyway, in his appeal. "we promised each other 30 years - please keep that promise.." I don't think he could resist it, I think his anger was still simmering when he wrote that. He could not handle rejection IMO and I think Helen had either said she wasn't sure about their future, or that it was over and she wanted a separation.

I'm still not sure if this was a loss of control, or something he thought about for a day or two beforehand. I rather think it was the latter, because of the lack of trace evidence of Helen or Boris, as well as her phone being turned off so that she couldn't be traced to the house. It involved moving cars, an absolutely unthinkable and cold dispatch, pretending everything was normal and no sign of what had happened, plus a plan of how Helen had gone without a conversation.

Lack of blood traces leads me to predict it was suffocation/strangulation.

MOO.

 

[ColourPurple]

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?

I wonder if he had found her secret stash of money and had been dipping into it or stolen it completely. Then maybe Helen found out, threatened to go to police so he killed her to silence her? He might have secret debts or a gambling addiction, and if so maybe he needed more money so he accessed her bank account abroad and police pounced.