I recall it was discovered that the American addresses belonged to a different Ian Stewart.
GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #10
- Thread starter michelle230
- Start date
- Status
I recall it was discovered that the American addresses belonged to a different Ian Stewart.
Not long now before IS and his Nobby Stiles sort out a permanent future at HMP.
I will celebrate when I hear that word "Guilty".
No prizes for guessing which verdict Judge Bright thinks is the right one.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I will celebrate when I hear that word "Guilty".
No prizes for guessing which verdict Judge Bright thinks is the right one.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Stumpyaura
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2017
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 1,620
Was it discovered or was it assumed that because it was a USA address it was a different IS? Can't remember as a while ago!
scandinavian girl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2014
- Messages
- 662
- Reaction score
- 4,532
it took me a few minutes but this made me laugh so hard.....:laughing:
icemaiden65
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 13
Very clever! :happydance:
IS will be a has bean!
Rindercella
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
Let justice be done.
I can't find the conversation , which as you say was a while ago, but I'm pretty sure that a number of companies were found of which one Ian Stewart was a director, which linked to dubious doings and possibly US websites, but the directors' addresses were different. I think Snoopydog found the info and then realised the error so no doubt we'll get clarification later!
Just found it (by searching thread 3 on 'sacked' as I remembered someone coming in and saying you're all sacked - it was Tortoise!)
Here's Batface's post:
Ahhh, stand down, it's an Ian Stewart in Texas!
http://52.1.219.11/unemployedpeopleloans.com#tab_whois
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,282
- Reaction score
- 132,414
I was trying to type a reply to one of Dolly's posts in the previous thread last night, and I spent so long over it because I couldn't express adequately what I wanted to say and by the time I gave up and scrapped it, the thread was closed anyway. It was the post about IS dumping Helen in excrement and then sat eating his Chinese. I agreed with Dolly's sentiments entirely and wanted to add something which I then decided sounded like rubbish so I gave up trying. I will try again with my morning brain but to be honest it still sounds clumsy.
It is to do with the significance of putting Helen in the pit to rot away and how it meant she would never have a funeral, never have the love bestowed on her that was her right, never allowing her family to honour her and allowing them to suffer for the rest of their lives, searching and never having closure.
That coldness (and this is why I can't express it properly because we know it existed anyway from the fact it was murder with premeditation) means he is unable to love. You can't compartmentalise love, have love for your sons but no love for Helen. Because there is no rationale to hate Helen. It isn't hatred for Helen, it is taking her life AND giving her nothing in death. No remorse. There was nothing left for him to do afterwards in terms of processing or grieving. It was over for him. She was nothing to him.
I've seen posts this morning postulating that he was worried about dying and his sons not being provided for. Knowing his inability to love, from the way he dealt with Helen as you would toss away an old chicken carcass, I can't believe that was his motive. He is cold and empty. Really. He does not have love for anyone. He is a true psychopath.
Nothing has been said in the trial about him being loving, not one family member has said it. Isn't it strange that his sons weren't asked that? I'm sure it would have been played on big time if there were examples of it to give the jury. In the Ben Butler trial we had home videos of him taking his children to the park and their birthday parties and Christmas present opening, stories about making pizzas with them and taking them shopping to the Disney store to buy perfume.
We heard IS isn't confrontational or violent but that doesn't mean loving. I would be willing to bet actually that he is controlling through other means, like sulking, teasing, running others down and gaslighting. He might have emulated love for Helen, but it was hollow, a game he enacted to get her money. I don't think it's even about money, it's about what money represents for him. Power.
He will play any game to get it. Given that he has demonstrated all this, I think it's more than a safe bet he has never loved anyone in his life. Everyone in his life exists to be used. He isn't human as we know humans to be, so I don't think we can discover true motive that is understandable within our own experience. Rehabilitation if that were a goal, is out of the question.
It is to do with the significance of putting Helen in the pit to rot away and how it meant she would never have a funeral, never have the love bestowed on her that was her right, never allowing her family to honour her and allowing them to suffer for the rest of their lives, searching and never having closure.
That coldness (and this is why I can't express it properly because we know it existed anyway from the fact it was murder with premeditation) means he is unable to love. You can't compartmentalise love, have love for your sons but no love for Helen. Because there is no rationale to hate Helen. It isn't hatred for Helen, it is taking her life AND giving her nothing in death. No remorse. There was nothing left for him to do afterwards in terms of processing or grieving. It was over for him. She was nothing to him.
I've seen posts this morning postulating that he was worried about dying and his sons not being provided for. Knowing his inability to love, from the way he dealt with Helen as you would toss away an old chicken carcass, I can't believe that was his motive. He is cold and empty. Really. He does not have love for anyone. He is a true psychopath.
Nothing has been said in the trial about him being loving, not one family member has said it. Isn't it strange that his sons weren't asked that? I'm sure it would have been played on big time if there were examples of it to give the jury. In the Ben Butler trial we had home videos of him taking his children to the park and their birthday parties and Christmas present opening, stories about making pizzas with them and taking them shopping to the Disney store to buy perfume.
We heard IS isn't confrontational or violent but that doesn't mean loving. I would be willing to bet actually that he is controlling through other means, like sulking, teasing, running others down and gaslighting. He might have emulated love for Helen, but it was hollow, a game he enacted to get her money. I don't think it's even about money, it's about what money represents for him. Power.
He will play any game to get it. Given that he has demonstrated all this, I think it's more than a safe bet he has never loved anyone in his life. Everyone in his life exists to be used. He isn't human as we know humans to be, so I don't think we can discover true motive that is understandable within our own experience. Rehabilitation if that were a goal, is out of the question.
So when do we think the jury will be back in? I think it will probably be tomorrow. I really hope they don't take days and days over it!
I'm wearing stripes in case. And I saw someone out in our village with a wire haired dachshund yesterday and the dog whispered "Justice for Boris" to me.
I'm wearing stripes in case. And I saw someone out in our village with a wire haired dachshund yesterday and the dog whispered "Justice for Boris" to me.
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 8,837
- Reaction score
- 30,101
From Helen's page
Boris looking out onto the back garden, watching the birds.
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,486
- Reaction score
- 16,536
If the judge finishes summing up and sends them out by lunchtime, I could see a verdict by the end of today.
Amber Panda
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
But if both Helen and Nobhead's names are on the Title Deeds, then surely the property will become the sole property of the surviving spouse. That's what happened when my husband died. The house was in joint names and became mine. I don't believe he could have bequeathed half the house to someone else. Are you saying that people can bequeath their half of a property that is in joint names?
MissTwiddle
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 161
I'm on tapatalk so can't snip and quote but I want to thank Tortoise for the reminder about how cold IS is, the reminder gave me the chills. I have given myself a shake. Xx
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well that would be nice. Although weird to have it all done and dusted. It always feels to me that at the end of the trial the victim should reappear as the killer gets taken down. That would be better justice but I suppose canning Big Bean for the rest of his days is the best we can hope for.
Part of me hopes Helen and Diane have met somewhere. I can't bear to think that this man has had the last laugh in both their stories.
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,301
- Reaction score
- 54,558
Excellent post Tortoise.....agree completely. I don't think anything he did was for anyone other than himself.
I don't believe he had a worry about his sons inheritance - as Cherwell said, just write a Will, it's not hard.
And Helen, from everything I have learnt about her, would not have disputed or blocked any Will that IS made. In fact she most likely would have been the person ensuring that his sons got everything that had been left to them, and a bit more besides.
There were a few interesting - revealing - comments made during testimony. When IS was asked what they ( he Helen and his sons ) did as a family together, he said they do their thing and we do ours. He then added - there's a pub in Bassingbourn, can't remember the name....and garden centres.
He lived in Bassingbourn for 20 odd years and can't remember the name of the pub they all went to - as a family ?
There was also the testimony of OSs g/f who said she thought IS loved Helen very much, but actually did not present any examples as to why she thought this. We know from the testimony of Helen's friend, that OS and g/f stayed more in his room rather than mix, even when grandparents came to visit. And g/f's testimony for the Sunday morning ( April 10 ) says that she heard Helen singing and thought she ( Helen ) sounded better than she had on the Saturday night. Again, this gives me the impression that they were not face to face, having breakfast together, but just sounds that g/f heard within the house.
Definately agree re the place he chose to leave the body. At first I thought this was simply the easiest option for him. Not having to put Helen and Boris into a car and then drive to find a suitable place to bury them - too much effort required and potential to be seen by someone.
But, on reflection, the pit suited him perfectly. It was the ideal way to discard the items that he no longer required in his life, and ensure that there was no big funeral and people mourning Helen.
His behaviour on the remainder of that day shows how little he cared. Job done, he could carry on with his life as normal. Going to bowls and and having a takeaway whilst watching tv. ( just like Nathan and Shauna ( Becky Watts case ) eating their takeaway and watching a DVD ).
I always find it interesting when people are described as kind and loving, simply because they are not violent.
It is not always the case.
As you say, rehab will be wasted on him. Better to just leave him to rot.
I don't believe he had a worry about his sons inheritance - as Cherwell said, just write a Will, it's not hard.
And Helen, from everything I have learnt about her, would not have disputed or blocked any Will that IS made. In fact she most likely would have been the person ensuring that his sons got everything that had been left to them, and a bit more besides.
There were a few interesting - revealing - comments made during testimony. When IS was asked what they ( he Helen and his sons ) did as a family together, he said they do their thing and we do ours. He then added - there's a pub in Bassingbourn, can't remember the name....and garden centres.
He lived in Bassingbourn for 20 odd years and can't remember the name of the pub they all went to - as a family ?
There was also the testimony of OSs g/f who said she thought IS loved Helen very much, but actually did not present any examples as to why she thought this. We know from the testimony of Helen's friend, that OS and g/f stayed more in his room rather than mix, even when grandparents came to visit. And g/f's testimony for the Sunday morning ( April 10 ) says that she heard Helen singing and thought she ( Helen ) sounded better than she had on the Saturday night. Again, this gives me the impression that they were not face to face, having breakfast together, but just sounds that g/f heard within the house.
Definately agree re the place he chose to leave the body. At first I thought this was simply the easiest option for him. Not having to put Helen and Boris into a car and then drive to find a suitable place to bury them - too much effort required and potential to be seen by someone.
But, on reflection, the pit suited him perfectly. It was the ideal way to discard the items that he no longer required in his life, and ensure that there was no big funeral and people mourning Helen.
His behaviour on the remainder of that day shows how little he cared. Job done, he could carry on with his life as normal. Going to bowls and and having a takeaway whilst watching tv. ( just like Nathan and Shauna ( Becky Watts case ) eating their takeaway and watching a DVD ).
I always find it interesting when people are described as kind and loving, simply because they are not violent.
It is not always the case.
As you say, rehab will be wasted on him. Better to just leave him to rot.
KarenUK
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2011
- Messages
- 828
- Reaction score
- 2,552
He could still leave his half to the children - that's what a friend of mine did recently when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, his wife will keep her half and can stay living there, but his half is split between the two children. There was a clause put on the will that said she could continue to live there as long as she wanted though.
- Status