GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #10

[LozDa]

I added the part about malingering but I really think it could be both. Think of his whole "when I had cancer" story when he never even had cancer. That seems for more for attention than financial gain... unless he was hoping that he did have something serious that he could use to claim DLA.

Yes, I agree it's murky. But I think it's to do with intention of manipulation. Are you manipulating people to believe you're ill because you yourself are mentally ill and have come to revel in the attention or sympathy, or are you manipulating people because you only see people for what they can do for you or what they can provide for you and these sort of situations have always caused people to give you more leeway and mean you can do less work and still make money etc etc.

I don't see Munchausen's myself, but I can see why it might be claimed in this instance.

 

[Alyce]

BIB
I hope you mean you're not hopeful we'll get the result today, Alyce,not that it won't be good when it comes! I have decided I must go out for a couple of hours or I'll be checking all the time. As I am antiquated and have no smartphone, once I'm away from my PC I can't check.

Exactly that Moll. I am not hopeful of a verdict today..... I am definately hoping for a good one, when it arrives.

 

[BlueMosaic]

Wish the Cambridge News would stop referring to IS as a "computer expert". He is not. It adds to his aggrandisement.

 

[ColourPurple]

I've been having a think about Milly's comments and I think I understand now in the context of her previous postings. She believes one of the sons did it and IS is covering for him.

I can only think it's because his victim act has done its work on Milly. As I said yesterday, it isn't about understanding motive or capacity for murder. The jury are not at liberty to consider that anyone other than IS, Nick or Joe did this, or that IS has another story they haven't heard.

I don't think you have to have fallen for his victim act to wonder if one of the sons was involved. It's crossed my mind too, even before IS got on the stand but as only IS is on trial and we're only being asked whether he or Nick & Joe did it, I'm gonna say IS.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes, I agree it's murky. But I think it's to do with intention of manipulation. Are you manipulating people to believe you're ill because you yourself are mentally ill and have come to revel in the attention or sympathy, or are you manipulating people because you only see people for what they can do for you or what they can provide for you and these sort of situations have always caused people to give you more leeway and mean you can do less work and still make money etc etc.

I don't see Munchausen's myself, but I can see why it might be claimed in this instance.

Yeah I tend to think he's just a nasty piece of work but somebody had brought up Munchausens by proxy and to me that doesn't fit but Munchausens alone might.

 

[Moll]

Exactly that Moll. I am not hopeful of a verdict today..... I am definately hoping for a good one, when it arrives.

Me too, Alyce. I'm not surprised the jury is going through everything carefully but if it goes on beyond today I'll start thinking there are one or two clinging on to some far-fetched doubt created in their minds by the defence. Worst case scenario then, a majority verdict. And now I really am going out...!

 

[neteditor]

Munchausens Syndrome by Proxy would fit this????

It was a thought that briefly crossed my mind. It doesn't fully fit MbP but which is why I said "some kind of MbP" which was grasping at straws really.

But LozDa, the beautiful and oh so wise LozDa, has already responded and answered far better than I could. (Thank you LD). And thank you ColourP for your work on the Munchausen's (no proxy) diagnostics. You both make more sense than I on that. Very grateful.

 

[Cherwell]

The jury did have four hours yesterday, but that was the first opportunity that they have had to discuss the case in all its aspects and hear what the others have to say. No surprise really if they wanted to sleep on it, as it were.

 

[icemaiden65]

I've been having a think about Milly's comments and I think I understand now in the context of her previous postings. She believes one of the sons did it and IS is covering for him.

I can only think it's because his victim act has done its work on Milly. As I said yesterday, it isn't about understanding motive or capacity for murder. The jury are not at liberty to consider that anyone other than IS, Nick or Joe did this, or that IS has another story they haven't heard.

That thought crossed my mind too yesterday Torty! But, I quickly dismissed it due to so many other factors that point directly to IS and not one of the sons. Pills, ring, standing order to name just three very quickly.

Hope that jury makes its mind up soon - my stripey top is beginning to need a wash here!

 

[neteditor]

This is just a general question.

If an accused is not given bail and are held in custody and then at trial found NOT GUILTY can they claim compensation for the time held?

No, I don't believe they can. Otherwise there would be thousands of payouts a year and we never hear about that happening.

If someone is proved to have been wrongfully arrested, then they would have a claim, I'm sure, but I doubt those cases make it as far as trial.

 

[neteditor]

Just to add my thought to others expressing similar here. I too wondered if IS was covering for a son, right until the moment the prosecution case began. Of course the police have entirely eliminated anyone else being involved (including Nick & Joe who can't be proved to exist).

 

[Tortoise]

That thought crossed my mind too yesterday Torty! But, I quickly dismissed it due to so many other factors that point directly to IS and not one of the sons. Pills, ring, standing order to name just three very quickly.

Hope that jury makes its mind up soon - my stripey top is beginning to need a wash here!

haha! I'm wearing a sripey blue and white scarf that has lived in a drawer next to some bath bombs that I received for Christmas. One of them is rose scented and it's like sitting with 1000s of nannas.

 

[neteditor]

Hahahaha thousands of nannas. Love it Tort!

 

[MissTwiddle]

Wish the Cambridge News would stop referring to IS as a "computer expert". He is not. It adds to his aggrandisement.

I'm liking to think they've said that to connote that he's wiley, it kind of has implications that he can manipulate IT.

 

[LozDa]

It was a thought that briefly crossed my mind. It doesn't fully fit MbP but which is why I said "some kind of MbP" which was grasping at straws really.

But LozDa, the beautiful and oh so wise LozDa, has already responded and answered far better than I could. (Thank you LD). And thank you ColourP for your work on the Munchausen's (no proxy) diagnostics. You both make more sense than I on that. Very grateful.

You've described me perfectly. :laughing::laughing:

 

[DollyDiamond]

No, I don't believe they can. Otherwise there would be thousands of payouts a year and we never hear about that happening.

If someone is proved to have been wrongfully arrested, then they would have a claim, I'm sure, but I doubt those cases make it as far as trial.

I seem to recall some debate about this after the gay Conservative MP Nigel Evans was acquitted on all charges relating to a rape/sexual assault trial. I think he argued it was wrong that he was out of pocket from legal costs when the allegations had, he claimed, been entirely spurious. However I never heard any more about it. Obviously the CPS had decided there was a case to answer - how you could prove an allegation was false or malicious I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Tortoise]

Someone needs to invent talking tweets so I can move away from my screen.

 

[Alyce]

He speaks for all of us



Mike Cartwright‏@MikeCartwright3 24m24 minutes ago

#bailey jury continue deliberating - we wait

 

[LozDa]

I seem to recall some debate about this after the gay Conservative MP Nigel Evans was acquitted on all charges relating to a rape/sexual assault trial. I think he argued it was wrong that he was out of pocket from legal costs when the allegations had, he claimed, been entirely spurious. However I never heard any more about it. Obviously the CPS had decided there was a case to answer - how you could prove an allegation was false or malicious I'm not entirely sure.

Not prudent to your point, lovely Dolly, but...

In 2003, Mr Evans was said to have indecently assaulted two men in their 20s when he approached them in public places while drunk and put his hand down their trousers.
The jury heard in his defence that these were examples of "drunken over-familiarity" and Mr Evans had no recollection of either event.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26974975

The less said about him, the better in my opinion.

 

[ZaZara]

Someone needs to invent talking tweets so I can move away from my screen.

Existing. Try software for the blind.


Morning all! :coffeews: