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

[ColourPurple]

3am ponderings.

Would he have stood to make more/less/about the same in monetary terms if they had been married? Or would that not have influenced the position?

Was there something that occurred over that weekend of April 9/10 that resulted in the events of April 11? Or did he just wake up on that Monday morning and decide that was to be the day?

Is there anything known of his usual habits, both work and social, that he undertook alone? Obviously in the last months would imagine not working due to health, if at all, but when he was, where was his base: home or that Bassingbourn address registered to some of his online things? Did he frequently spend time away in 'business'? Did he often excuse himself from HB saying he had to go out on business, perhaps in the evening?

I am wondering if he could have become mixed up in some shady dealings, someone had something on him they were threatening to expose unless he paid *advertiser censored* sum, and/or perhaps owed a large sum of money (gambling? sexual nature?) that he had fallen behind in payments on, hence the heavy dudes, 'Joe and Nick'. I doubt he would have therefore been keen to discuss this with his sons, and least of all the police, in those months running up to April.

Or whether he'd started another online relationship, hence him wiping his computer?

 

[Katharine]

There are some cases that come so close to the heart. For me this is Helen Bailey. I just cannot fathom the why. There doesn't seem to be a good reason at all. I wish she had a good bestie friend outside her home that she could tell anything then perhaps we might have a better clearer.

I do want to thank those who tweet the trial. And thank you Michelle for an inside view in the court room (and outside too).

 

[mbmc]

I too have been pondering in the wee small hours. I have suspicions that IS is a bit of a Walter Mitty character, leading people to believe he was financially more solvent than he was and was living with large debts, therefore I agree with MillyM he had got himself mixed up in shady deals, "Joe and Nick "?

The drugging of Helen seems likely to have been to facilitate the activation of the POA, but something happened to make him panic and he needed money asap, and tragically Helen paid with her life.

I hope that it is all answered in the coming weeks for Helen's family and the two sons, I cannot imagine how they must feeling [emoji45]




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ironside]

Someone mentioned canoe man earlier (John Darwen who faked his own death) and he has crossed my mind. Darwen had madcap schemes for the money he got and I do think IS also had some bonkers plan for Helen's money like a wacky invention or property in Syria or something ridiculous.

I do believe IS has willed himself to believe in Joe and Nick and he also believes that he "dealt with" one of them. How could the jury think he killed Helen when he in fact valiantly dealt with one of them!

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[icemaiden65]

There are some cases that come so close to the heart. For me this is Helen Bailey. I just cannot fathom the why. There doesn't seem to be a good reason at all. I wish she had a good bestie friend outside her home that she could tell anything then perhaps we might have a better clearer.

I do want to thank those who tweet the trial. And thank you Michelle for an inside view in the court room (and outside too).

Exactly the same feelings for me too. The nearest I can get to why is that I lived in Ponteland for quite a few years and keep picturing a young Helen there, unaware of what awful things lay ahead.

 

[icemaiden65]

God, I hope not, too awful to think about. Helen had no shoes on when found, which possibly means she had her feet up and was dozing? Even in a panic I'd put slippers or shoes on to venture into our garage, and we have direct access from the house. There again, who knows if she was sleepy and confused it might have happened that way.

 

[Alyce]

So while he waited a possible 7 years to claim his full inheritance he was planning to live off this 185k and his 4k a month standing order in the meantime. Have we ever had such a cold calculated accused before?

I feel so sad that Helen thought she'd found her Prince Charming and had actually found this vile vile man who it appears only ever saw her as a pound sign

Hi CP, good to see you on here.

Yes, that £185K would have funded a few nice big purchases for him to start off with.
Then, in addition to possiby selling off some of Helen's things, over time ( I doubt her family had a detailed inventory which would allow him leeway ) I daresay the SO would also have been increased,once he felt comfortable that no one was keeping a close eye on him.

 

[Tortoise]

Well I don't have one shred of doubt that this man is just a plain lying sociopath and mercenary killer. There was no Joe or Nick. There was no punch in the stomach. This is someone with an absence of conscience and an absence of ability to feel love, he will have learnt how to mimic these things and fool people. He is a master of manipulation and unfortunately for people in his life, they will have been used and manipulated and he sees everyone, even his sons, as prey. That is hard to swallow. But see how he has used J to promote his story on his behalf. If his son can get this story out for him, he won't have to work so hard to convince the jury, people will doubt whether he would lie to his own child. These types lie just as easily as they breathe, and they have practiced it so well that people who come across them think they are charming, to believe otherwise means having to accept the opposite of what they thought they knew.

That is how sociopaths succeed. That is why Helen would not have wondered if he was drugging her, even though there was no other explanation for suddenly waking up after a 5 hour heavy sleep and not being able to walk off the beach. I think she would have felt drugged and known at a subconscious level that the reality was that it must be the one who was feeding her. If you trust someone it would be like falling from a cliff to suddenly contemplate that they actually want to harm you. The truth hurts, and people don't wish to believe the alternative because it seems incomprehensible that he is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. That is why I think some are struggling to accept the evidence here. The evidence could hardly be stronger, it is an open and shut case. The man rushed off to get her money before she was even cold. He killed a human being and her beloved pet and didn't collapse in grief, he felt none. There is no why in terms of what we would understand, this is just someone who doesn't operate by the same moral compass, doesn't need a 'why', just is.

All in my opinion.

 

[mrjitty]

Just a technical note on trial procedure.

IS must take the stand if "Joe & Nick" are to be placed in evidence

The statement of his son is hearsay

That means it can only be used as evidence that IS told his son about J&N in December

It cannot be used as proof that the alleged J&N incident took place.

In other words, strictly speaking, the primary source of the statement, (i.e. IS) must testify as to the existence of J&N if they are to play any relevant role at trial.

 

[mrjitty]

Well I don't have one shred of doubt that this man is just a plain lying sociopath and mercenary killer. There was no Joe or Nick. There was no punch in the stomach. This is someone with an absence of conscience and an absence of ability to feel love, he will have learnt how to mimic these things and fool people. He is a master of manipulation and unfortunately for people in his life, they will have been used and manipulated and he sees everyone, even his sons, as prey. That is hard to swallow. But see how he has used J to promote his story on his behalf. If his son can get this story out for him, he won't have to work so hard to convince the jury, people will doubt whether he would lie to his own child. These types lie just as easily as they breathe, and they have practiced it so well that people who come across them think they are charming, to believe otherwise means having to accept the opposite of what they thought they knew.

That is how sociopaths succeed. That is why Helen would not have wondered if he was drugging her, even though there was no other explanation for suddenly waking up after a 5 hour heavy sleep and not being able to walk off the beach. I think she would have felt drugged and known at a subconscious level that the reality was that it must be the one who was feeding her. If you trust someone it would be like falling from a cliff to suddenly contemplate that they actually want to harm you. The truth hurts, and people don't wish to believe the alternative because it seems incomprehensible that he is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. That is why I think some are struggling to accept the evidence here. The evidence could hardly be stronger, it is an open and shut case. The man rushed off to get her money before she was even cold. He killed a human being and her beloved pet and didn't collapse in grief, he felt none. There is no why in terms of what we would understand, this is just someone who doesn't operate by the same moral compass, doesn't need a 'why', just is.

All in my opinion.

I have the feeling the Judge will direct the Jury to make an adverse inference over the failure to mention J&N in his police interviews

See the UK law reform on pre-trial statements

The purpose of section 34 is:

(a) to discourage an accused from fabricating a defence late in the day; and
(b) to encourage the accused to make speedy disclosure of any genuine defence or any fact which may go toward establishing a genuine defence. (See R v Roble [1997] Crim LR 449).

In R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr.App.R. 27, Lord Bingham set out the six formal conditions that must be satisfied before an adverse inference can be drawn:

There must be proceedings against a person for an offence;
The alleged failure to mention a fact at trial must have occurred before charge, or on charge;
The alleged failure must have occurred during questioning under caution. (Refer to Archbold 15-484 to 15-486 on the question of when a suspect should be cautioned.);
The questioning must have been directed to trying to discover whether or by whom the alleged offence was committed;
The alleged failure of the accused must have been to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings;
The alleged failure must have been to mention a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/#a05

So in other words we no longer allow the accused to manufacture a defence late in the day when key facts ought to have been disclosed in his police interview.

So in this case, I would argue that the J&N incident cannot be relied on at trial as it was not disclosed pre-charge.

 

[Alyce]

My responses are in bold

3am ponderings.

Would he have stood to make more/less/about the same in monetary terms if they had been married? Or would that not have influenced the position?

Would depend on whatever arrangement Helen decided upon. Any money and assets she took into the marriage would be hers alone, unless she chose to share - I think, being the lovely, genuine person that she appears to have been, that she would have shared all with him once they were married.

Was there something that occurred over that weekend of April 9/10 that resulted in the events of April 11? Or did he just wake up on that Monday morning and decide that was to be the day?
He was at the end of the tablet supply ? He had reached the point where he knew Helen could be safely knocked out with the dosage he was giving her, so it was the right time for him ? The Gateshead property was about to be sold, presumably papers had been signed by Helen, so a windfall of £185K was about to arrive.

Is there anything known of his usual habits, both work and social, that he undertook alone? Obviously in the last months would imagine not working due to health, if at all, but when he was, where was his base: home or that Bassingbourn address registered to some of his online things? Did he frequently spend time away in 'business'? Did he often excuse himself from HB saying he had to go out on business, perhaps in the evening?

He had suffered from ill health for the past 16 years or so ( as per Jamie S evidence yesterday ). Base was Hartwell Lodge, the Bassingbourn property was the house he owned with his wife, which was sold in 2014.

I am wondering if he could have become mixed up in some shady dealings, someone had something on him they were threatening to expose unless he paid *advertiser censored* sum, and/or perhaps owed a large sum of money (gambling? sexual nature?) that he had fallen behind in payments on, hence the heavy dudes, 'Joe and Nick'. I doubt he would have therefore been keen to discuss this with his sons, and least of all the police, in those months running up to April.

 

[Florrie]

Well I don't have one shred of doubt that this man is just a plain lying sociopath and mercenary killer. There was no Joe or Nick. There was no punch in the stomach. This is someone with an absence of conscience and an absence of ability to feel love, he will have learnt how to mimic these things and fool people. He is a master of manipulation and unfortunately for people in his life, they will have been used and manipulated and he sees everyone, even his sons, as prey. That is hard to swallow. But see how he has used J to promote his story on his behalf. If his son can get this story out for him, he won't have to work so hard to convince the jury, people will doubt whether he would lie to his own child. These types lie just as easily as they breathe, and they have practiced it so well that people who come across them think they are charming, to believe otherwise means having to accept the opposite of what they thought they knew.

That is how sociopaths succeed. That is why Helen would not have wondered if he was drugging her, even though there was no other explanation for suddenly waking up after a 5 hour heavy sleep and not being able to walk off the beach. I think she would have felt drugged and known at a subconscious level that the reality was that it must be the one who was feeding her. If you trust someone it would be like falling from a cliff to suddenly contemplate that they actually want to harm you. The truth hurts, and people don't wish to believe the alternative because it seems incomprehensible that he is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. That is why I think some are struggling to accept the evidence here. The evidence could hardly be stronger, it is an open and shut case. The man rushed off to get her money before she was even cold. He killed a human being and her beloved pet and didn't collapse in grief, he felt none. There is no why in terms of what we would understand, this is just someone who doesn't operate by the same moral compass, doesn't need a 'why', just is.

All in my opinion.

Thank you Tortoise, I think you have summed this up really well. It explains so much.
I know very little about sociopaths and personality disorders which is why I was struggling with the descriptions of IS as a non violent person. What you have posted makes so much sense.

 

[Cherwell]

Good point, Mr Jitty. We are all familiar with the words from film and TV dramas:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."

 

[mrjitty]

Overall this crime doesn't seem very well planned.

For example:

* he didn't work out the financial aspects properly before he killed Helen
* he didn't properly work out how she would "go missing"

Given her car was still in the driveway and the main thing missing was the dog and her phone, surely it made more sense for her to have been abducted while walking the dog.

Yet he went straight in with a story that made no sense at all and actually cast suspicion on himself by suggesting she went off to be alone which suggests a fight.

Obviously the crime is premeditated but perhaps he accidentally murdered her ahead of schedule?

By that I mean he was rehearsing technique or similar.

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]10:50[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Court in chambers[/h]There is a short in chambers discussion (excluding the press and public) before the trial begins again this morning.


10:51
[h=3]Court will not sit tomorrow afternoon and Thursday morning[/h]The case is now starting, we’ve now been called back in and jurors are coming into the court room. Jurors are being told that the court is not sitting tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning.

10:55
[h=3]Girlfiend of Oliver Stewart is today's first witness[/h]The first witness is Alexandra Mcgarry, who is the girlfriend of Stewart’s son, Oliver Stewart. She tells the court she met Oliver through hockey. She is being asked about the weekend in particular before Helen went missing.
“On the Saturday before Helen went missing, I went shopping with Oliver to Cambridge.
“After this Oliver dropped me off at mine to pick up my car and then I drove to his and stayed at his this evening. I remember Helen looking quite stressed that particular evening, she didn’t say hi, she kept her head down and just walked into the kitchen.
“I heard she was in her jeep and got very anxious, so I thought it could be to do with that.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12464906





[/FONT]

 

[Alyce]

Ah like that fraudster who pretended to be in a coma but was caught on camera shopping with his wife at Tesco. They caught coma- man through tracking where he used and collected Tesco points. Wonder if they've done the same for this case.

I think the Tesco footage came into the case almost accidentally as a result of the shoplifting incident on that day. Presumably IS was asked what he and Helen did over that week end, before she * disappeared * and if he mentioned shopping at Tesco, then it would be a file note and perhaps picked up by the team who were dealing with the shoplifting.

I still cant fathom why it was relevant to show the footage though. Is it because this is the last known, independent, sighting of Helen ? But we have the evidence of her good friend who was chatting with her ( email , text ) on the Monday, which I would have thought proves Helen was still alive at that time. And I really cant see why the defence would say they deny that the footage is Helen and IS.

 

[Alyce]

There are some cases that come so close to the heart. For me this is Helen Bailey. I just cannot fathom the why. There doesn't seem to be a good reason at all. I wish she had a good bestie friend outside her home that she could tell anything then perhaps we might have a better clearer.

I do want to thank those who tweet the trial. And thank you Michelle for an inside view in the court room (and outside too).

Me too re the closeness of this case.

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]11:01[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Learned Helen Bailey was missing from a Facebook post[/h]“On Sunday, she seemed in better spirits. We woke up, had some breakfast, I drive home, Oliver had some college work to do and I wanted him to concentrate on that so he stayed at his and I went back home.
“On Monday morning I was at my house, Oliver stayed at mine on Sunday night as well. On the morning of April 11, Oliver went to work and so did I.
“We texted quite a lot during the day, he came back to mine after work to pick up his sat nav.
“On Monday night I stayed at home and Oliver went to cadets. On Tuesday (April 12) Oliver went to work then to the passport office. “At some stage Oliver told me that Helen had gone to Broadstairs.
“On Sunday April 17 Oliver was away doing cadet training and I was scrolling through my Facebook feed, I saw a post that Helen had gone missing.
“I was quite shocked by this and text Oliver to ask him what was going on. It was a cause of concern to me.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12464906

[/FONT]

 

[mrjitty]

Good point, Mr Jitty. We are all familiar with the words from film and TV drams:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."

Yes.

Although the right to silence is still a strong presumption, S34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 seems tailor made for this case.

IIRC (and this was actually discussed in my Crimes Lectures way back in the day when I studied law) one key idea was to stop people manufacturing alibis

So they say nothing in police interview, but then at trial the accused says "oh I was at Nick's house", and then Nick is produced as a witness and says "yeah that's right"

That fact should be disclosed in the police interview so that the police get a decent chance to investigate.

This case is similar in that the Police should have been given the opportunity to investigate the existence of these two mysterious villains.

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]11:06[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Ian Stewart 'looked stressed and very tired'[/h]“I next saw Stewart on April 20, the day before Oliver and I went to Australia.
“When I saw Stewart he looked quite stressed, very tired, but he was still very friendly and came and said hi to me.”
Alex said she was aware the police had been round and were asking lots of questions. She is being asked about Helen in the weeks before these events.
“I very rarely stayed at Oliver’s so I can’t really comment. On the Saturday (April 9) she seemed very stressed. I got the impression she didn’t really like me staying over.
“I previously went round for Christmas drinks and then she seemed absolutely fine.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12464906

[/FONT]