GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #10
- Thread starter michelle230
- Start date
- Status
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,554
- Reaction score
- 16,812
If that really is the case, then it's the law, so he can challenge all he likes, so long as he has the funds to pay a lawyer, lol.
As for distributing the estate, I have no doubt TH will be guided by Helen's wishes in this and previous wills, and her brother who I am sure can be trusted to act with fairness and generosity.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
BIB
That rather looks as though IS's share will go to the boys. Is that really the case? If so, I would be happy with that
I am sure somebody posted on an earlier thread that the slayer's dependents could not inherit? Now I am confused.
I have just had a thought. The Slayers Law is an American Law is it not? Have we adopted it here in the UK?
icemaiden65
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 13
Coincidentally I have been reading about this subject this evening. Really too complicated for me so it would be great if we have any legal eagles here that could help explain please?
Slayers Law is a US of A law, so not applicable in that sense. I am wondering about the "presumption of predecease" and if that would apply to this case?
From rubbing my two brain cells together I gather there is also the Intestacy law 2011 whereby the children of the guilty party cannot inherit, it will miss a generation so the grandchildren shall inherit.
Obviously I don't know what I'm talking about, but would be very interested in clarification.....anyone?
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
I think the UK law is called the Forfeiture Law. I am sure we have a lawyer on board. Mr Jitty if one but his line was Civil. Nonetheless he is very knowledgeable.
Stumpyaura
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2017
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 1,620
Something that's been bothering me but not techy enough to know if it's true/plausible.... When we were all checking out his website and other domain names it showed loads of domain names associated with him mainly payday lender type sites etc. These were discounted because they were addresses registered in America, Texas I think. The reason this niggled me is that Helen's PayPal had attempted transactions and these were thought to be random cyber attacks because they had an American IP address. Is there any way that IS could have been using these domains via a proxy server and dabbling in internet fraud?! It might have been something he did anyway accumulating wealth as he went, small withdrawals from bankaccs /PayPal. I'm sure it's nothing as police would have investigated his finances I'm sure but no computer record to incriminate
BatFace
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2016
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 13
peter010101
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2017
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 0
DollyDiamond
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 43
Give that little lady a big bedtime hug! xxfftobed:
Awww thanks! Her life is one big hug, just as it should be! X
Like keeping IS supplied with haemorrhoid cream for the rest of his life?
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,137
- Reaction score
- 31,572
Thanks for the insight into the severe debility IB and I don't doubt that when he was in intensive care in the 90's that was an awful time for him.
I was more wondering when he took the insurance policy out in relation to when he claims he had his symptoms, around 95?
We often have journalists browsing here at this stage, so if there's a curious one .......
this would be interesting to know.ETA: Imagine if, upon conviction, they release a prior conviction for petty fraud committed by IS in the past!
Between Dolly starting her premature celebrations with the cocktail snags,(love that girl's confidence!), and piles living long and prospering/bursting, here I am laughing hard, all alone.
I know it's useless to try to make sense of motivation, but he wasn't hard up, and didn't have any history of spending big, or behaving violently, it simply doesn't make sense. I would put my money on some perceived slight, except for the sedatives...
I know it's useless to try to make sense of motivation, but he wasn't hard up, and didn't have any history of spending big, or behaving violently, it simply doesn't make sense. I would put my money on some perceived slight, except for the sedatives...
MissTwiddle
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 161
I think I may have an idea about motive/timing
It was the question asking about wills (i'm sorry I can't remember who asked) and Michelle saying she'd have hoped he'd have done right by his sons that got me thinking.
So, IS was sickly, he's had for years what was once a killer condition, he's been in intensive care a few times and then he suspected he had cancer. I know it turned out to be piles but they only found that out after operating, so his worry could have been very real to him.
If he had died what would happen to his sons? At best their home would have become half theirs (sharing with Helen) but it's complex, Helen knows a lot of professional (powerful?) people and they don't. What if he was worried that they'd have been forced out? Even if they got paid off would it be enough to really secure their future, remember he was very protective of them and thought of them as child dependants. Not to mention all the hassle, upheaval and upset divvying up a shared house between his partner and his two sons would create. I also think it explains why he'd backed off from the idea of marriage, as it would have meant Helen would have jumped the queue to next of kin. I think this because if he didn't intend to get married, why ask her in the first place? And why so obviously stall to the point of being rude about it.
I'm thinking that IS was spurred on to kill Helen to secure his sons futures as I 'think' that when he started to drug her he was unsure about his own future.
Some other thoughts i've had that have led me to think this are from his tall tale, as I suspect that it contains some insight into how his mind works:
... He alluded that Helen was involved in something financially dodgy, by association (mistrust?)
... In his tale he protected his sons from the bad men (goal?)
... References to finances and suspicion that Helen had funds that he didn't know about (mistrust?)
... References to how ill he's been (reason?)
... References to he himself not needing the money (indicating it was not intended for him).
Am I being too soft here? Thinking that he could be looking out for someone other than himself?
It was the question asking about wills (i'm sorry I can't remember who asked) and Michelle saying she'd have hoped he'd have done right by his sons that got me thinking.
So, IS was sickly, he's had for years what was once a killer condition, he's been in intensive care a few times and then he suspected he had cancer. I know it turned out to be piles but they only found that out after operating, so his worry could have been very real to him.
If he had died what would happen to his sons? At best their home would have become half theirs (sharing with Helen) but it's complex, Helen knows a lot of professional (powerful?) people and they don't. What if he was worried that they'd have been forced out? Even if they got paid off would it be enough to really secure their future, remember he was very protective of them and thought of them as child dependants. Not to mention all the hassle, upheaval and upset divvying up a shared house between his partner and his two sons would create. I also think it explains why he'd backed off from the idea of marriage, as it would have meant Helen would have jumped the queue to next of kin. I think this because if he didn't intend to get married, why ask her in the first place? And why so obviously stall to the point of being rude about it.
I'm thinking that IS was spurred on to kill Helen to secure his sons futures as I 'think' that when he started to drug her he was unsure about his own future.
Some other thoughts i've had that have led me to think this are from his tall tale, as I suspect that it contains some insight into how his mind works:
... He alluded that Helen was involved in something financially dodgy, by association (mistrust?)
... In his tale he protected his sons from the bad men (goal?)
... References to finances and suspicion that Helen had funds that he didn't know about (mistrust?)
... References to how ill he's been (reason?)
... References to he himself not needing the money (indicating it was not intended for him).
Am I being too soft here? Thinking that he could be looking out for someone other than himself?
I don't know much about this area.
But my guess is he cannot inherit from Helen as others have said.
But any equity he had in the house before the murder, he always owned and it is not the proceeds of crime - so he will keep that.
No doubt there will be legal fighting (civil) down the track between Helen's estate and IS as to how much of the sale proceeds he should receive.
But really only guessing based on general principles.
As far as I know a murderer does not lose his assets.
Amber Panda
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
Miss Twiddle, I thought the exact same thing. He was worried that he would die before Helen and all his assets would pass to her if they were man and wife. If she then re-married again, his sons could miss out on not only Helen's money, but also his own.
MissTwiddle
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 161
Thank you Amber, yes, the added concern if she re-married too.
I suppose it could explain why he's gone to trial too, rather than admit he did it, because in his eyes there's still a chance he can secure his sons future.
I really don't like the idea that Helen got sucked in and fooled by a predator so as evil as it is doing what he's done, and I do 100% believe he did it, I do like to think that Helen had genuine happy years with him.
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,554
- Reaction score
- 16,812
So make a will in favour of the sons. It's not rocket science. Helen wouldn't have wanted to stay in Royston anyway.
I've found a good source for those interested in the pathology of the body. This pathologist's textbook describes all manner of human death (with illustrations - not for the faint hearted) but what's interesting in the chapters on suffocation (ch 14, p352) and "immersion" (ch 16, p395, bodies discovered in water) is that they reflect the problems mentioned by the pathologist in this case as well as queries raised by Russell Flint in his closing defence statement
Basically, it's incredibly difficult to say that suffocation is due to murder unless there are noticeable signs of struggle - and there were no signs of such on HB's body. This is what Flint was trying to say; making a distinction between her merely dying, and her being murdered, let alone IS doing the deed. Separating the dumping of the body with the actual manner of death. Similarly, "the autopsy diagnosis of drowning presents one of the major problems in forensic medicine, especially when there is a delay in recovering the victim". Bodies retrieved from water may have died from natural causes or injury before entering the water.
IS could have got away with murder had he drugged and smothered her, and then just left her on the bed, or made it look like she fell downstairs; staged it as a "natural death" and then waited instead of changing standing orders, which resulted in a motive and a fraud charge. He wouldn't have had to spin the Joe and Nick story either. The zoplicone might have raised red flags, but it would have just been his word against the Crown's that he was drugging her or not, and probably very hard for a jury or even the CPS to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt, especially as IS had no criminal record and is very good at coming across as a victim himself.
As it stands, it's still just his word against the Crown's, but the existence of the body in the cesspit indicates murder and malice, and he then had to come up with the Joe and Nick yarn which speaks for itself.
BTW if you do click this link it is full of very graphic images, either don't click it or have one eye open and a hand at the ready to block the screen.
https://www.inventati.org/sabotage/images/6/6e/7856e6154d66b52cc0886ea3b75767d3.pdf
Basically, it's incredibly difficult to say that suffocation is due to murder unless there are noticeable signs of struggle - and there were no signs of such on HB's body. This is what Flint was trying to say; making a distinction between her merely dying, and her being murdered, let alone IS doing the deed. Separating the dumping of the body with the actual manner of death. Similarly, "the autopsy diagnosis of drowning presents one of the major problems in forensic medicine, especially when there is a delay in recovering the victim". Bodies retrieved from water may have died from natural causes or injury before entering the water.
IS could have got away with murder had he drugged and smothered her, and then just left her on the bed, or made it look like she fell downstairs; staged it as a "natural death" and then waited instead of changing standing orders, which resulted in a motive and a fraud charge. He wouldn't have had to spin the Joe and Nick story either. The zoplicone might have raised red flags, but it would have just been his word against the Crown's that he was drugging her or not, and probably very hard for a jury or even the CPS to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt, especially as IS had no criminal record and is very good at coming across as a victim himself.
As it stands, it's still just his word against the Crown's, but the existence of the body in the cesspit indicates murder and malice, and he then had to come up with the Joe and Nick yarn which speaks for itself.
BTW if you do click this link it is full of very graphic images, either don't click it or have one eye open and a hand at the ready to block the screen.
https://www.inventati.org/sabotage/images/6/6e/7856e6154d66b52cc0886ea3b75767d3.pdf
- Status