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

[Joely 123]

I am so thankful to read all of the web sleuth posts regarding Helen. It makes one feel less alone in questions within her dying, and especially the trial.
I am new here - and only wish to add that Helen spoke of loving cake .. thinking of how IS may have known this - and I also feel, instinctively, that when we don't want coffee ..and trying to feel well after loss and depression that she may have mixed 'smoothies'. I am here on web sleuths having come to Helen through Dachshund groups - and her book.

 

[Florrie]

I am new here and registered because of this case. I didn't know Helen but read her book about a year ago and was very touched by it.
When she vanished I hoped so much that she had just gone off for a few weeks rest and was devastated when her body was found.
I have been following this thread for a few months now but had to register because I am so shocked at what is coming out in court.
I agree with TRB, there is so much evidence against Stewart that his only option to rebut this is to take the stand and try to negate some of it.
Am eager to hear about "Joe and Nick" who are supposedly guilty.

More than anything though I feel for his two sons who have already lost their Mum and now stand to lose their other parent to the prison system. I know they are adults but they are both still very young.

I think the fact she was found with her dog somehow makes it worse knowing how much she loved Boris.

 

[LozDa]

I am so thankful to read all of the web sleuth posts regarding Helen. It makes one feel less alone in questions within her dying, and especially the trial.
I am new here - and only wish to add that Helen spoke of loving cake .. thinking of how IS may have known this - and I also feel, instinctively, that when we don't want coffee ..and trying to feel well after loss and depression that she may have mixed 'smoothies'. I am here on web sleuths having come to Helen through Dachshund groups - and her book.

I am new here and registered because of this case. I didn't know Helen but read her book about a year ago and was very touched by it.
When she vanished I hoped so much that she had just gone off for a few weeks rest and was devastated when her body was found.
I have been following this thread for a few months now but had to register because I am so shocked at what is coming out in court.
I agree with TRB, there is so much evidence against Stewart that his only option to rebut this is to take the stand and try to negate some of it.
Am eager to hear about "Joe and Nick" who are supposedly guilty.

More than anything though I feel for his two sons who have already lost their Mum and now stand to lose their other parent to the prison system. I know they are adults but they are both still very young.

I think the fact she was found with her dog somehow makes it worse knowing how much she loved Boris.

:welcome3:

 

[LozDa]

Am eager to hear about "Joe and Nick" who are supposedly guilty.

Post respectfully snipped by me (RSBM)

I'm with you on this. I really am highly interested to know what kind of story has been fabricated. I literally can't imagine anything else (other than what we all know happened) making any sense.

 

[Rayemonde]

Hi Mr J! You're spot on there. I wonder if it is an even bigger error than we realise at this stage? If he was in the habit of going around with that phone on his person with the SIM and Battery intact, even if he had switched it off, it would be traceable at the various telecom masts scattered around.

If these "contacts" coincided with cctv of him in the exact vicinity it's further circumstantial evidence of his culpability and obstruction of justice.

I'm curious as to what evidence they actually have relating to this.

Where no known cause of death is known, the circumstantial evidence must be the only obvious explanation - as per Lord Justice Goddard's ruling:

Goddard said: "... it is equally clear that the fact of death, like any other fact, can be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is to say, evidence of facts which lead to one conclusion, provided that the jury are satisfied and are warned that it must lead to one conclusion only."

I have a feeling that the circumstantial evidence in this case if overwhelming and will indeed lead to one conclusion. Given Goddard's strict ruling I don't see how the CPS would have proceeded otherwise.

In 2014, a man named David Parker hid the body of his estranged wife under his bed despite being under a restraining order. He lied and told the police she had gone on a cruise. If I recall he only got one year in prison for preventing the lawful disposal of a corpse. The CPS failed to charge him with manslaughter as they could not prove he played any part in her death despite being deeply suspicious of his testimony.

Which is why I think they have all they need to get a conviction against Stewart.

I suppose he might have had a chance if he'd claimed to have found her dead and decided to hide her body so he could keep her money. He would probably have to admit killing Boris though, to make it look like Helen had just left of her own free will. He could have claimed that he found them both dead, and Helen had killed herself and Boris, but no one who knew her would believe that...

So he could have tried the old "Yes, I admit I'm a thief and a dog killer, but I'm not a murderer!" defence of admitting a lesser crime to get away with the big one.

He could have been found guilty of theft/ fraud, failing to report a death or similar and animal cruelty, but would probably have just got a slap on the wrist. I suppose he's so arrogant though, he thinks he's going to get away with everything so he didn't want to admit even hiding a body.

He really must be arrogant to have kept Helen's body on the property... He thought LE would just take his word about the note, and never do a thorough search of the property?? He thought a bit of wood and parking a vehicle over the manhole cover would keep his secret forever?? It boggles the mind.

 

[Joely 123]

My suggestion - much covered before by the 'senior' web sleuths.
Do Widowers like IS search bereavement groups seeking vulnerability?
Helen is such a strong person in all of her life, and in her collapse of grief, which she describes so well - she doesn't know how to make decisions. I believe (now) that she NEEDED , in her heart, all that was not easy for her. She loved IS and his sons but found herself in an alien place, trying to accept the new status quo.
And I believe IS knew this - every inch of the way in how to undermine the strengths of the one he possessed within his goals.
Helen would have said NO - had she not been in grief and bending towards a happiness .. but despite not telling anyone, I think she would be concerned .. and yet blamed this on her own past pain.

 

[Alyce]

:welcome6: Joely and Florrie

 

[ZaZara]

My suggestion - much covered before by the 'senior' web sleuths.
Do Widowers like IS search bereavement groups seeking vulnerability?
Helen is such a strong person in all of her life, and in her collapse of grief, which she describes so well - she doesn't know how to make decisions. I believe (now) that she NEEDED , in her heart, all that was not easy for her. She loved IS and his sons but found herself in an alien place, trying to accept the new status quo.
And I believe IS knew this - every inch of the way in how to undermine the strengths of the one he possessed within his goals.
Helen would have said NO - had she not been in grief and bending towards a happiness .. but despite not telling anyone, I think she would be concerned .. and yet blamed this on her own past pain.

Hi Joely, welcome to Websleuths :daisy:

My first experience on the Internet was some 10 years ago when I joined a platform for people who needed support & wanted to support one another too. Such a wonderful initiative! Or so we all thought, but perhaps not because of the same reasons. That place was full of predators. They posed as vulnerable, they offered support, they had their moments and the ulterior motive was always lurking in the background. You would probably not meet that many in real life for all of your living years. On line they were plenty, only a few mouse clicks away.
The phenomena predator and grooming were explained to me with a warning by someone who ironically later also turned out to be one. In all it was quite an education and it took a while before suspicions crept in.

I had only heard vaguely about Helen, until her disappearance.
IMHO and based on my own experience, she was vulnerable because she had lost her husband and on top of that she became even more vulnerable when she started the website for the whole world to see and join.

I'm not saying that she should not have done it, or done it differently, because she brought about tons of goodness too, but given my own experience I would not have recommended it.

Internet and on line communications can have a profound impact on vulnerable or impressionable people. IMHO radicalization of youngsters via the internet works in the same way, and that is sometimes a matter of a mere few weeks.

 

[Kitty262]

I'm new here, but wanted to add my own experiences in reply to Joely. As ZaZara said there are predators online & unfortunately widows are seen as an easy target, partly because of the medias portrayal of a widow as either a broken woman or a man mad wealthy nutjob! I was widowed a few years ago & have seen my fair share of friend requests from "fake widows" on Facebook. They join widow pages & keep an eye on who's posting or liking things. Funnily enough whenever you like a post you get friend requests or messages almost immediately. These men are mostly from America, usually only have a couple of female friends & very often claim to be in the military.
I know I'm rambling, I apologise, but it's difficult to stop once you start on about these people.
IS is obviously different, having actually got the paperwork to prove he's a widower (believe me, I'd want to see it before I got involved with anyone claiming to to be one!), but in some ways he is the same. He has sniffed out a target in Helen, having already tried & failed with others, used his "charm" & unfortunately Helen, being vulnerable, has been taken in by it. I'm just glad I'm a skint widow so nobody fancies wasting their time with me!
So yes, there are widowers, real & fake, who go on the hunt for wealthy & vulnerable widows.
The way this has turned out though is something no-one expected & is shocking. It certainly tests your faith in mankind.
I hope no-one minds me jumping in with my ramblings, I just thought it might help to understand that these things do happen & can happen to any of us. There are horrible people out there, that try to take advantage of you in your most vulnerable moments.

 

[Alyce]

:welcome6: Kitty and thank you for a great inside understanding of widow/er forums. Sad but true.

I would like to think that IS - who most definately had the paperwork - was initially attracted to Helen as a person - but sadly, the more I learn the more I realise his actions were most likely predatory from the outset.

 

[Zab]

He got her and her money, by all account she sounded like a nice person to be with, so why?????

 

[Interested Bystander]

Unusually, we have no dissenters on the thread. Nobody shouting his innocence. It does look very open and closed to me BUT has anyone thought of what his "excuse" could be, as he has chosen to plead not guilty? He seems to have backed himself into a corner by adding two accomplices (who I am sure don't exist).

I spent a happy hour yesterday trying to think what we might hear. Here are my musings. Not all make sense and holes can be shot through much of it. It would be interesting if anyone else has any thoughts on the subject or maybe you have better things to do on a Sunday LOL. So for what it is worth this is what I came up with. I have entitled it WHAT IF.

WHAT IF?

I have been trying to think what IS’s explanation for Helen’s death can be if he is not pleading guilty to murder. I started by trying to picture a scenario where he might agree manslaughter.

WHAT IF he comes up with the story that H had become very dominant in their relationship (remember her brother said she was very strong willed and would tell people what she thought and did not the Defence bring up at some stage that H and her late husband fell out with business partners or was that her friend)? Could he have plied her with sleeping pills to keep her sleepy and therefore calm? It seems there were three different occasions when the drug was found in her hair samples. If he was going to kill her why did he not do it when he first started giving her sleep inducing medicine. He will probably say she was anxious and he offered some of his medication to help her sleep. It also seems they had very few visitors who would be in a position to verify what their home life was like, apart from his sons. Will they appear?

WHAT IF they confirm H could be difficult at times.

WHAT IF he had decided he didn’t want to go through with the marriage, after all it had been cancelled twice before (once when his health was causing concern and I thought on one other occasion too but cannot remember the reason). The wedding had been organised for September; not too far ahead and firming-up arrangements would probably be in hand. If he walked out on her he would be left with very little, ie no big house, no home for the boys and no income (I don’t think he worked). Perhaps it was Helen who was very keen to marry and IS had changed his mind.

WHAT IF the last straw was Helen on her computer, that fateful morning, searching for a venue for a wedding that he no longer wanted to be part of? Maybe over the last few weeks before he killed her he decided he had only one way out. To murder her and dispose of her body where it was unlikely it would be found. That would be very disturbed thinking but it means he would inherit. He was very well aware of how rich he would become.

WHAT IF surreptitiously he managed to get H to take a large dose of V that morning. Was she on pills for anxiety? Her brother indicated she was a very anxious individual. Could IS have crushed the drug and replaced the contents of a capsule that she might have been taking for anxiety?

Of course, no rational person would take this path but to get away with murder WHAT IF he says he killed her whilst the balance of his mind was very disturbed due to her incessant nagging and pressure to marry etc. For her to have signed so much over to him without even being engaged is a little odd, don’t you think? Her writings suggest she had fallen, hook, line and sinker for him very early in the relationship AND so soon after the death of her husband. Maybe his feelings were not as deep but “he went along with it”.

I know all this is very hypothetical and full of holes but given he has a very charming, persuasive barrister on his side, could he get away with it?

PS I am not attempting to denigrate Helen in any way and I think without doubt he is guilty of murder and probably planned the outcome a long while ago. He may well have picked Helen as “his future” from one of the bereavement sites. This is only an exercise where I am attempting to fathom what his evidence could be in order to have a chance of succeeding with a not guilty of murder plea.

Another option could be that he claims he was under the influence of drugs. Was he taking hard drugs? Maybe he started taking them after he murdered her in order to give himself an alibi. Drug addicts do sometimes get away with murder. There was a DRR (Drug Rehabilitation Requirement) in place at the start of the trial.

 

[Cherwell]

I don't think any of your "What Ifs" present any reasonable defence. You can't kill people because you don't want to marry them, or because they are "difficult" or nag you.

 

[Tortoise]

Morning IB. He had the option of pleading guilty to manslaughter, so I reason that he won't be using any of those defences.

I'm interested in how he can implicate two individuals and say he wasn't aware she hadn't left voluntarily. Unless he is going to say they left the note, maybe forced her to write it. Perhaps he is going to say he wasn't aware but has had time to think (since his arrest) who might have had a motive, so he has no proof but it is a story that the jury might wish to consider when they wonder if there is reasonable doubt.

He is going to have to work extremely hard to convince the jury and I don't think that will succeed unless he gives evidence and has an opportunity to play act. The evidence against him is overwhelming. Did Nick and Joe visit the house in Broadstairs with Helen's phone, the same time he was there for example, just to implicate him, and why would he then pack up the router and take it back to Royston? Coincidence? Yeah right.

I'm afraid that Helen's absolute ignorance about why she was so sleepy and having episodes that she couldn't explain has him caught high and dry. That and the coincidence that he just decided innocently to park her Jeep over the cesspit after N & J put her in it, and take the bed cover to the tip same day and go back to see it had gone, and alter the bank transfer etc.

:jail:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Morning IB. He had the option of pleading guilty to manslaughter, so I reason that he won't be using any of those defences.

I'm interested in how he can implicate two individuals and say he wasn't aware she hadn't left voluntarily. Unless he is going to say they left the note, maybe forced her to write it. Perhaps he is going to say he wasn't aware but has had time to think (since his arrest) who might have had a motive, so he has no proof but it is a story that the jury might wish to consider when they wonder if there is reasonable doubt.

He is going to have to work extremely hard to convince the jury and I don't think that will succeed unless he gives evidence and has an opportunity to play act. The evidence against him is overwhelming. Did Nick and Joe visit the house in Broadstairs with Helen's phone, the same time he was there for example, just to implicate him, and why would he then pack up the router and take it back to Royston? Coincidence? Yeah right.

I'm afraid that Helen's absolute ignorance about why she was so sleepy and having episodes that she couldn't explain has him caught high and dry. That and the coincidence that he just decided innocently to park her Jeep over the cesspit after N & J put her in it, and take the bed cover to the tip same day and go back to see it had gone, and alter the bank transfer etc.

:jail:

Thank you Tortoise. That blasts my idea out of the water. lol It also shows my lack of knowledge about the law. I had not realised he would have automatically had the choice. I live and learn.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Morning IB. He had the option of pleading guilty to manslaughter, so I reason that he won't be using any of those defences.

I'm interested in how he can implicate two individuals and say he wasn't aware she hadn't left voluntarily. Unless he is going to say they left the note, maybe forced her to write it. Perhaps he is going to say he wasn't aware but has had time to think (since his arrest) who might have had a motive, so he has no proof but it is a story that the jury might wish to consider when they wonder if there is reasonable doubt.

He is going to have to work extremely hard to convince the jury and I don't think that will succeed unless he gives evidence and has an opportunity to play act. The evidence against him is overwhelming. Did Nick and Joe visit the house in Broadstairs with Helen's phone, the same time he was there for example, just to implicate him, and why would he then pack up the router and take it back to Royston? Coincidence? Yeah right.

I'm afraid that Helen's absolute ignorance about why she was so sleepy and having episodes that she couldn't explain has him caught high and dry. That and the coincidence that he just decided innocently to park her Jeep over the cesspit after N & J put her in it, and take the bed cover to the tip same day and go back to see it had gone, and alter the bank transfer etc.

:jail:

Even if they did exist how on earth would they know about the cess pit? He immediately implicates himself with that story. I don't think they exist.

Be in no doubt I think he is a very "dark" and very guilty guy who sought out someone like Helen (with money) from one of the Widow/Widowers websites with the express idea of having access to money and a good life. I am hoping for a full life sentence.

 

[Alyce]

I looked back at Helen's book the other day - first time I have done so since the day she was found.

I was initially only searching for one fact that I couldnt quite remember, but the narrative drew me in and I began to go through all the chapters taking particular note of the parts concerning IS ( which of course I had not done during my initial reading, as no reason to ).

Little things began to stand out - how IS played the game ( I am sure it was ) of disappearing off FB as soon as Helen was hooked ( mentioned before on here by Risen Bishop ). Only to re establish contact with the excuse re the riots in London.
How he was always the calm, level headed, support to her anxiety and the person available to drive her to Broadstairs the first time she went back there after JSs death, knowing her dislike of motorways and knowing it would be an emotional visit.
He clearly read her very well , very quickly and knew which role to play.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Tortoise,

He had a DRR against his case information on the Courtserve info. Surely that would only be the case if he was on drugs.

I suppose another scenario (again false) could be that he says he was on drugs and these were his dealers. Helen found out and created a scene, maybe threatening to call the police. They turned up that morning and murdered H by suffocation and threatened him with the same if he went to the police.

A complete pack of lies but could it work for him? He likely would claim that all the "covering up" was necessary for him to avoid being murdered.

So has he become a junkie in order create an alibi?

 

[Tortoise]

I'm not sure about the DRR against his name. I didn't get to see it because I'm not a subscriber to CourtServe but perhaps it was just an admin error, or it related to the person below or above.

Even if he were on drugs, it's unlikely IMO that he would have a DRR hearing at his murder trial. DRR is for people who have already been sentenced from what I gather. Remember cannibal Brizzi who was a meth addict - he used it to raise a defence during the trial. IS hasn't been sentenced for a crime relating to drug use as far as I know.

 

[foxed]

Hello, I'm new and registered here because of this case. I'm a former reader of Helen's wonderful blog. Thoughts are with her family at this horribly distressing time.

I'm not sure it's been mentioned here yet but apologies if it has. On Helen's blog she wrote about how IS used to make Helen tea every day. She described him as making a good cuppa. There has been discussion on this forum about how he might have managed to administer drugs to her without her knowing, making her sleepy in the morning. Well, one of his household duties was making her tea each morning, which she liked in a certain specific way, with sugar. The sugar in the tea might have masked the bitter taste of the drug.

I hope I'm doing links right - this is the blog post that mentions that he used to make her tea regularly http://planetgrief.com/2012/03/26/brighton-belle/?s=tea There's more in her book too. Tea definitely seems to have been part of her daily ritual.

And in this one, just a couple of months before her death, she mentions sitting writing in the morning with a mug of tea by her side, so it's likely this was her routine until soon before her death. http://planetgrief.com/2016/02/27/five-years/

Hope it's all right to post this small observation, which may be insignificant! Thanks to everyone posting so thoughtfully and thoroughly about the trial.