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

[Alyce]

But haven't we been told that Helen had already made a will in his favour, with the specification that it would not be invalidated by their marriage? So his position was the same, married or not.

Yes, the Will does not change, but his positiion would not be the same, whether married or not.

Scenario One
Helen dies, before they marry. He inherits everything straight away ( well after probate ! ) and has sole control to do whatever he wants with the money and property.

Scenario Two
They get married. He is still dependent on Helen's generosity as to how much money he can have.
If she adds his name to the property deeds and puts him onto all her bank accounts then he has full access to the money.
But he still has to deal with Helen, who might not be thrilled to see him spending all her money.

 

[Cherwell]

Yes, the Will does not change, but his positiion would not be the same, whether married or not.

Scenario One
Helen dies, before they marry. He inherits everything straight away ( well after probate ! ) and has sole control to do whatever he wants with the money and property.

Scenario Two
They get married. He is still dependent on Helen's generosity as to how much money he can have.
If she adds his name to the property deeds and puts him onto all her bank accounts then he has full access to the money.
But he still has to deal with Helen, who might not be thrilled to see him spending all her money.

I meant in the event of her death, in either scenario.

 

[Alyce]

I meant in the event of her death, in either scenario.

I went off to do something else and as I was doing so, the penny dropped as to what you meant !

Of course, you are completely right....before or after doesnt matter if he is killing her ( or even if she just dies, naturally ).

The only bonus of before ( for him ) is doesnt have to wait as long and doesnt have to go through with a wedding

 

[michelle230]

Just to add ......... I've had a spring clean

Lol...all this great posting and still time to clean out the cupboards

 

[michelle230]

I'd just like to put my last question back into context, as a couple of other people have quoted it and responded.












My point was that this "Joe and Nick" could hardly get him into any worse trouble than he's in now.

True - but only if he doesn`t take the stand.

 

[Tortoise]

Perhaps...just perhaps.. he didn't want to run the risk of having two wives who died unexpectedly. It would make people suspicious and possibly lead to a re-opening of the investigation into his first wife's death. How unlikely would it be for two wives of normal health to suddenly die by the same method he had developed which left no outward signs. So to get away with it he's going to have to do this one differently and make it a disappearance and wait the 7 years, meanwhile having access to a comfortable income because he's upped the standing order - and as he was hoping to push through with the POA - a property sale going into their joint account.

 

[michelle230]

I went off to do something else and as I was doing so, the penny dropped as to what you meant !

Of course, you are completely right....before or after doesnt matter if he is killing her ( or even if she just dies, naturally ).

Except to lose one wife to a sudden, unexplained death is a tragedy, but to lose two is a different story.

 

[michelle230]

Perhaps...just perhaps.. he didn't want to run the risk of having two wives who died unexpectedly. It would make people suspicious and possibly lead to a re-opening of the investigation into his first wife's death. How unlikely would it be for two wives of normal health to suddenly die by the same method he had developed which left no outward signs. So to get away with it he's going to have to do this one differently and make it a disappearance and wait the 7 years, meanwhile having access to a comfortable income because he's upped the standing order - and as he was hoping to push through with the POA - a property sale going into their joint account.

Ooops...just typed my post and then saw yours!

 

[michelle230]

Just had another thought! If he were to take the stand, can you imagine all the people who would be in the public gallery...his sons, his former MIL and SIL, his first wife`s friends...everybody who wanted answers (which they know they won`t get), but to see him sweat and shake anyway.

 

[Alyce]

Perhaps...just perhaps.. he didn't want to run the risk of having two wives who died unexpectedly. It would make people suspicious and possibly lead to a re-opening of the investigation into his first wife's death. How unlikely would it be for two wives of normal health to suddenly die by the same method he had developed which left no outward signs. So to get away with it he's going to have to do this one differently and make it a disappearance and wait the 7 years, meanwhile having access to a comfortable income because he's upped the standing order - and as he was hoping to push through with the POA - a property sale going into their joint account.

Very good thought.........plus he had the added bonus, with Helen, of the comments she had made ( years earlier but still ) about wanting to disappear.

 

[Joely 123]

Some points that I was reminded of today. Margaret Holson had a missed FaceTime call from Helen -I think it was the 22nd April (sorry I am not highly technical to highlight sources but from the Cambridge News today -summarising the trial to date). Can't imagine what IS was playing at then.

Going back to the 11th April - and the Pathology witnesses where one said that he could not ascertain how Boris died - whether by drowning - as his post-mortem state was difficult to analyse.
It made me thinking about conversations on here about whether IS planned the 11th April or whether he was 'rushed' into his final actions towards the demise of Helen. And I wonder if Helen was possibly close to unconsciousness as a result of the increasing sleeping drug, IS was feeding her - and he 'panicked' or 'thought of this as an opportunity of a long designed plan' and led her to the Cesspit (as has been muted before) and had Boris jump in because Helen was there - or simply through him in with his toy and closed the tank.
When IS talks of Helen being agitated, frustrated by the Wedding Venues not being possible - this contradicts conversations by other witnesses .. Tracey saying the morning of the 11th, Helen was excited. And Margaret Holson in her evidence that Helen on learning that IS tumour was benign. 'Let life begin'.
I do not believe that Helen would go into a storm over Wedding venues - I believe she would simply accept that and switch to another date to have the chosen venue - even if that meant a different month.

I have just watched Helen's first 'selfie' video - about Planet Grief .. and she is in her office - and absolutely witty, self composed, but self mocking - and talks of the benefits of writing one's story to help to heal grief.

This man had everything in this beautiful person - and no wonder he is crumbling now that he is in a Prison cell with nothing ... except a planned strategy to make his life ahead a little more possible to bear .. just as he always played his cards (seemingly) to up the stakes for his own best outcome.

 

[Ironside]

But haven't we been told that Helen had already made a will in his favour, with the specification that it would not be invalidated by their marriage? So his position was the same, married or not.

If IS misunderstood POA it could be that he thought having it would override her will. So having her missing meant he could access ALL of her money rather than only receiving part of it if she died.

I think he was miffed she was leaving money to other people rather than him getting it all and began drugging her as a result.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[Joely 123]

Did IS know that John Bailey shared POA? Perhaps he did believe he could make quicker access to Helen's money in her absence - missing/deceased.

I wonder what happened in December 2015 when he supposedly first gave Helen drugs.

 

[mrjitty]

I still think he did not want to marry her, don't think he ever had any intentions to, hence all the secrecy. He was due to inherit plenty from her, in the event of her death, without marriage anyway. The lump sum of £1.8 million, the large family home in Royston and the cottage at Broadstairs. Apart from the lump sum, HB going missing still provided him with all of these things, plus the cars, and a monthly allowance of £600 (although it's claimed he did try to up this to £4000)

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/live-day-one-murder-trial-12427078

Maybe he got a widows pension after he lost his wife and he didn't want to lose it through re-marrying. The prosecution state the murder had 'money as its driving motive' and maybe he wasn't prepared to lose any of it. Jmo.

Do we know this?

Was he named in her will?

I see this was discussed in opening. I wonder what he stood to gain?

 

[Legally Bland]

Do we know this?

Was he named in her will?

I see this was discussed in opening. I wonder what he stood to gain?

I need to check, but I think it was£1.8m plus the house(s).

 

[mrjitty]

But haven't we been told that Helen had already made a will in his favour, with the specification that it would not be invalidated by their marriage? So his position was the same, married or not.

I can't see there is enough information at the moment to make a call on this.

Counsel stated that HB made provision that her will in 2014 would not be invalidated by any subsequent marriage

From what prosecution counsel said, I took this to mean IS was NOT receiving the bulk of her estate

 

[mrjitty]

I need to check, but I think it was£1.8m plus the house(s).

But was he the main beneficiary?

 

[Legally Bland]

Her alleged killer was to receive at least £1.8million from her £4million fortune as well as the £1.5million Royston property she died in and her second home on the Kent coast in Broadstairs, the court heard.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.da...ion-home-shared.html?client=ms-android-google

 

[mrjitty]

Perhaps...just perhaps.. he didn't want to run the risk of having two wives who died unexpectedly. It would make people suspicious and possibly lead to a re-opening of the investigation into his first wife's death. How unlikely would it be for two wives of normal health to suddenly die by the same method he had developed which left no outward signs. So to get away with it he's going to have to do this one differently and make it a disappearance and wait the 7 years, meanwhile having access to a comfortable income because he's upped the standing order - and as he was hoping to push through with the POA - a property sale going into their joint account.

Yes.

It all depends on the specific nature of the POA

Some are quite limited and kick in only when you are incapacitated for example. They may also be limited to certain actions.

However it is possible to grant a quite broad POA or authority - e.g to execute investment decisions etc

 

[mrjitty]

Her alleged killer was to receive at least £1.8million from her £4million fortune as well as the £1.5million Royston property she died in and her second home on the Kent coast in Broadstairs, the court heard.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.da...ion-home-shared.html?client=ms-android-google

Thanks!

OK - so he got written in to her will, and was sitting pretty in the event of her death

Big motive!

I guess he might have misunderstood the POA

Its not uncommon for couples to execute POAs at the time they do wills. Probably it was just the usual POA that says, if I get hit by a bus and am in a coma, you can do certain things for me.

It would not normally cover this situation