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

[mbmc]

I do find it odd that Power of Attorney was put in place at such a young age, albeit for if and when needed. My father gave me POA when he was in his seventies and his health was failing, which seems the right time.

So I have wondered wether, plying her with drugs and clearly making her think she had a worrying condition, would at some point enable him to use the POA. I know it was joint with her brother, but when giving evidence he seemed to have no suspicions of IS, which would lead me to think that he would take IS's lead on domestic needs concerning Helen. I had joint POA with my brother when it had to be used I never once consulted him, he left it all up to me.

But, here is the conundrum, why? When on the face of it he had it all, a loving partner, a lovely home and plenty of money coming in, so using POA makes no sense.

I can't get my head around this, and can only hope that as the trial goes on more will become clear, although given his not guilty plea I fear we will never know.

As for Nick And Joe, well I wait with baited breath.

I do think he is as guilty as hell and ultimately it was all about money, but someone going missing and having to wait about 7 years for the inheritance puzzles me, he in that time will have had to have had a decent income to up keep that home and his income from Helen would have gone.

Scratching my head here [emoji45]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Legally Bland]

Helen's friend of 15 years is called as the next witness

Tracey Stratton, Helen’s friend, is the next witness to give evidence.

Tracey said she had known Helen for 15 years and met Helen through her business. She said that Helen and her husband, John Sinfield, had run a company called Patrick Sinfield Ltd. John Sinfield had been a silent partner in the business, which was a licensing agency.

“We would talk on the phone, email and text each other. I used to meet her in town, do shopping, eat and catch up.

“When I first got to know her Helen had been running another business called White Line Publishing.

“That partnership had been resolved before Helen’s husband passed away.

“I was close to Helen. After her husband died, I went and more or less, moved in with her for a while.

“I was the second person she told about her husband’s death. I went to stay with her at Highgate in London.

“I stayed for four or five nights a week initially and as time moved on that dwindled to one or two nights a week, until it was every so often.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-day-12441178

BIB. I don't think this will be important but the reporter has misheard, it should be White Lion Publishing.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03763538/officers

 

[Alyce]

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.

Hi Foxed and :welcome4:

Yes, tea granules wasn't it that Helen liked. Easier to work with, for IS, than a tea bag no doubt

 

[Interested Bystander]

It was clearly against his name. I took a screenshot of it. Of course, it could still be a mistake. However, I am still looking for it as I junked it soon after having taken it and may not have given it a name other than that assigned automatically.

 

[Alyce]

BIB. I don't think this will be important but the reporter has misheard, it should be White Lion Publishing.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03763538/officers

Ah many thanks for that Legally.... I could not find anything relevant under White Line and I did wonder if the name had been a play on the words White Lion, being as White Lion street was where PSL was based ( Patrick Sinfield Ltd )

 

[Alyce]

I have looked at that entry every which way and the DRR reference does seem to refer to IS - which is most odd.

Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRIGHT QC

DRR - Review
For Trial (No Witnesses)
T20167121 STEWART Ian
41E12190616



for privacy purposes, I have deleted the other two names - one showing above and one below IS.

There are only 3 names listed for AM hearings ( including IS ) so I think, as Michelle says, this is going to be IS entering his plea and that will be it for him for tomorrow.

Just bringing this back up with the Court Serve entry

 

[Alyce]

It was clearly against his name. I took a screenshot of it. Of course, it could still be a mistake. However, I am still looking for it as I junked it soon after having taken it and may not have given it a name other than that assigned automatically.

I am trying to get a copy from archives

 

[Florrie]

I can't read the book now and I had re-read it several times. The references to IS as her GGHW are too heart breaking.
I think she was absolutely targeted given what evidence is now being presented.
I suspect "Joe and Nick" are going to turn out to be "drug dealers" who were supplying something or other to him or a friend. IS will naturally have no information regarding their identity,

Will he take the stand though? I think he has no option but to do so.

i am not surprised he is looking defeated and ill, more than any play acting for the jury must be the shock of hearing how much evidence there is against him. Yeah he has no option but to try and negate that evidence.

His sons didn't live in the house did they? I did wonder at one point if he was going to plead not guilty based upon the fact he wasn't the only person in the house.

Manipulative and probably psychopathic if that's the case. Those poor son's of his.

 

[Alyce]

I do find it odd that Power of Attorney was put in place at such a young age, albeit for if and when needed. My father gave me POA when he was in his seventies and his health was failing, which seems the right time.

So I have wondered wether, plying her with drugs and clearly making her think she had a worrying condition, would at some point enable him to use the POA. I know it was joint with her brother, but when giving evidence he seemed to have no suspicions of IS, which would lead me to think that he would take IS's lead on domestic needs concerning Helen. I had joint POA with my brother when it had to be used I never once consulted him, he left it all up to me.

But, here is the conundrum, why? When on the face of it he had it all, a loving partner, a lovely home and plenty of money coming in, so using POA makes no sense.

I can't get my head around this, and can only hope that as the trial goes on more will become clear, although given his not guilty plea I fear we will never know.

As for Nick And Joe, well I wait with baited breath.

I do think he is as guilty as hell and ultimately it was all about money, but someone going missing and having to wait about 7 years for the inheritance puzzles me, he in that time will have had to have had a decent income to up keep that home and his income from Helen would have gone.

Scratching my head here [emoji45]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I had similar with my mother, re not doing one until she was older.

I have known quite a few folk who do these early and there are several variations that can be set up, even just for someone who is going to be out of the country for say 6 months and needs someone to handle their day to day affairs.

However, I doubt the one that IS had was that kind - more likely his was the in case of incapacity POA.
It was done in June 2015, so perhaps IS already had some indication of health problems at that time ( or made out to Helen that he did ! ) and said that they should do POAs in favour of each other ( although I have no idea if Helen did have one for him ).

I agree re the drugs and him being able to activate the POA even though JB was the co signatory on the POA. As you say, there did not seem to be any suspicion on JBs part re IS ( why would there be, he doesnt seem to have met up with IS regularly and Helen never spoke badly of him ) so I agree that JB would have left the day to day stuff and handling the money to IS.
So, with Helen not fully functioning, IS would have been able to spend what he wanted - rather than his £600 allowance.

As to the waiting 7 years after Helen's death to get the full inheritance.
I am guessing there was no mortgage and dependent on how much money was in Helen's accounts, he may have been able to carry on for quite some time with no cash problems. Plus, I am sure there's stuff in the house, not least Helen's jewellery and belongings, which could also have been sold off, as time went by.
There is also legislation currently progressing through the system, which may overturn the 7 year wait in certain circumstances ( there is a link somewhere on here ) so all in all, I think he would have survived ok in the interim.

As to why - pure greed and the need to control all the money.
I have said before, but I do think he thought Helen would add him onto her bank accounts when they moved in together and he would have access to all the money. When she didnt do that and just gave him an allowance, I think this grated over time.

So he began the tablets initially with the idea of just making her incapable of handling her affairs and giving him full control.

Then, when it hadn't worked sufficiently well by early April, and he was coming to the end of the tablets, he decided - rather than trying to get more tablets, which may have been difficult to do ? - that the only option left was murder.

 

[mrazda71]

I can't read the book now and I had re-read it several times. The references to IS as her GGHW are too heart breaking.
I think she was absolutely targeted given what evidence is now being presented.
I suspect "Joe and Nick" are going to turn out to be "drug dealers" who were supplying something or other to him or a friend. IS will naturally have no information regarding their identity,

Will he take the stand though? I think he has no option but to do so.

i am not surprised he is looking defeated and ill, more than any play acting for the jury must be the shock of hearing how much evidence there is against him. Yeah he has no option but to try and negate that evidence.

His sons didn't live in the house did they? I did wonder at one point if he was going to plead not guilty based upon the fact he wasn't the only person in the house.

Manipulative and probably psychopathic if that's the case. Those poor son's of his.

I have a very good friend who last year (just before Helen went missing) lost her much loved partner of 8 years to a very sudden heart attack.

I was going to buy Helens book for her but, then it all came out and it seems inappropriate now ... life moves on, you'll be different but can still be happy and maybe even meet someone who'll make you smile again ... for a while, that is, until they drug and murder you and kill your dog too ... not quite the positive spin that the book was intended to have eh!

Not supposing that the dastardly duo are anything more than Ians imaginary friends but ... he could well have an ongoing drug problem.

You'd be surprised how many people you'd never imagine are functioning drug users.

 

[Cherwell]

I do think he is as guilty as hell and ultimately it was all about money, but someone going missing and having to wait about 7 years for the inheritance puzzles me, he in that time will have had to have had a decent income to up keep that home and his income from Helen would have gone.

As to the waiting 7 years after Helen's death to get the full inheritance.
I am guessing there was no mortgage and dependent on how much money was in Helen's accounts, he may have been able to carry on for quite some time with no cash problems. Plus, I am sure there's stuff in the house, not least Helen's jewellery and belongings, which could also have been sold off, as time went by.
There is also legislation currently progressing through the system, which may overturn the 7 year wait in certain circumstances ( there is a link somewhere on here ) so all in all, I think he would have survived ok in the interim.

There will still be a considerable amount going into Helen's estate every month in royalties from her books.

Don't forget that he attempted to increase the amount of her standing order into his account. Incriminating by itself.

As you say, there is likely to be no mortgage, so £4,000 a month would have been a comfortable income for him in the meantime.

 

[michelle230]

Hi everyone,
Some very interesting reading and thoughts. It never occurred to me that these online widow/er sites could be a place to befriend and entice vulnerable, potential victims. Gosh! How many cruel, manipulative chancers are there out there, watching and waiting to pounce on their next prey.
Also, thank you to the person who first mentioned the likelihood of IS being on meds. Observing his demeanour in court, this makes perfect sense - I suspect he is heavily sedated which is why he seems spaced out and rarely shows a reaction.

I guess when you get away with things, you don`t have to face the truth but can run from it by subconsciously blocking it from yourself. The human mind has an enormous ability to block (think abuse victims). However, knowing what is out there in public - the whole horrific catalogue of wickedness - and IS actually hearing what the world is hearing - well - there is no way you can run from it. My thoughts are that he is having the fight of his life - both physically/practically (i.e. being found guilty and all that means), and very much emotionally too.
Did I really kill? Did I really drug? Did I really put someone`s body in such a dark, dark place? Is this who I am? Is this what I am capable of? And many more unbelievably horrific things to face about himself.
Hard for me to explain, but I think many people are able to block the truth of who they are and things they`ve done...from themselves. However, when it all falls apart and is staring them in the face (and having to sit and actually *hear* it all)... then one can escape from oneself no longer!
He know has to look at the mirror that is being held up in front of him... showing his reflection starkly back. Before this I suspect, he had avoided mirrors at all costs.
Michelle

 

[Tortoise]

Michelle your post reminds me of Pistorius. During the pathologist's evidence he sat with his fingers in his ears so he didn't have to listen.

 

[Ironside]

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.

It was a friend called Mac who drove her to Broadstairs, not IS. I'm rereading her book at the moment.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

It was a friend called Mac who drove her to Broadstairs, not IS. I'm rereading her book at the moment.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

Mac is IS. ... She disguised his name in the blog at the beginning, but later admitted who it was

 

[Tortoise]

Mac is IS. ... She disguised his name in the blog at the beginning, but later admitted who it was

I wonder why she did.

 

[Tortoise]

Michelle your post reminds me of Pistorius. During the pathologist's evidence he sat with his fingers in his ears so he didn't have to listen.

Oh I've just re-read this and it sounds like I'm comparing you to Pistorius. I hope you know I meant IS and not you, I'm sure you do but just in case. .

 

[Alyce]

I wonder why she did.

Perhaps there were other widows and widowers from the same site , who would know both Helen and IS , and who were reading the blog and Helen did not want reveal that it was IS.......maybe because she did not want anyone to think he was more than just a pal at that time.

In fact, I am remembering now, that when she ( or rather IS to be accurate ) did eventually make it clear that they were an item, Helen got some nasty comments from some of the widows, who thought it was not right for her to be having a new relationship so soon.

IS on the other hand was probably keen to make others aware that they were an item, before anyone else got too close to Helen.

 

[Tortoise]

Perhaps there were other widows and widowers from the same site , who would know both Helen and IS , and who were reading the blog and Helen did not want reveal that it was IS.......maybe because she did not want anyone to think he was more than just a pal at that time.

In fact, I am remembering now, that when she ( or rather IS to be accurate ) did eventually make it clear that they were an item, Helen got some nasty comments from some of the widows, who thought it was not right for her to be having a new relationship so soon.

IS on the other hand was probably keen to make others aware that they were an item, before anyone else got too close to Helen.

Ah, the busy bodies were out in force.

 

[Joely 123]

I am hugely interested in the POA - and can only believe Helen was vulnerable to such a legal enforcement/arrangement because she had suffered the shock of being helpless after the tragedy of JS. I feel she would still have been in shock, even in her life in Royston, and was more open to coercion/guidance than she had ever been.
Beyond thinking of all of the 'coercive' possibilities. I keep thinking of Boris. I have two Dachshunds - and know how they alert to any suggestion of attack. That may be the Postman - but they are little guard fiends. And it leads me to wonder endlessly, how IS could suffocate Helen or give her the 'lock' with Boris in the room. It would be impossible for Boris to die before Helen, unless she was so drugged that day - and IS took Boris into, perhaps, the kitchen and fed him a fatal poison in his food. And then took them both to the 'well' but offerd his mad apology in throwing in the dog toy - or throwing it in because Boris may have mouthed at that toy before dying ... and it was an attempt to clear evidence of any saliva.