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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squamous said:
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.
Click to expand...


I hope Helen comes back to haunt him. On the other hand, she probably has far better things to be doing.
 
MissTwiddle said:
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
Click to expand...

To quote in tapatalk you just tap the post and choose quote - you can even multi quote using the "more" option :)
 
Amber Panda said:
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?
Click to expand...

The problem is he is not her spouse.
 
Forgot to put this up last night

Looks hopeful with that 11.30 scheduled in for Judge Bright



The Crown Court

at St Albans
Daily List for Tuesday 21 February 2017 at BRICKET ROAD ST ALBANS


Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRIGHT QC


Trial (Part Heard)
T20167121 STEWART Ian
41E12190616


NOT BEFORE 11:30 am
U20170059 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
Tortoise......your " Gormless Giant Half-Wit" ..gummy dude had me on the floor for at least half an hour.....haha...funny stuff
 
Amber Panda said:
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?
Click to expand...

It was only in joint names to avoid double stamp duty when it was bought. I see no reason why he couldn't leave his interest in the house to his sons. This is something that could easily have been dealt with with the help of a solicitor and/or financial advisor.
If he had died, Helen would most probably have moved back to London so the house would have been sold anyway.
 
KarenUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well you live and learn. I never knew that. I guess it depends on whether the house is 'joint tenants' or 'tenants in common' too. I'm sure you can't bequeath your half of a property if you are joint tenants.

Its the only explanation I could think of as to why he would do such a dastardly, despicable thing. As he was always (allegedly) so ill, it just seemed plausible that he began to think that Helen (if he was basing other people's actions on his own exceedingly low (or non-existent) standards) might leave his sons out (not that she would, I'm sure, but who knows how his deranged mind works). Unless he truly is a psychopath - which seems to be the case - and just wanted to kill her for his own sick satisfaction. Its such a heinous crime, he surely can't be normal by any sense of the word.
 
I completely agree with Tortoise and Alyce. IS's actions have not been those of a caring father, desperate to protect his sons' inheritance. From all that I understand of Helen, she would have protected them financially too, should IS have predeceased her (ha, if only). Had he cared about his sons' finances, he wouldn't have proceeded with this farcical defence, likely to cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. His poor sons will be left with very little, except the knowledge that their father is a cold-hearted murderer.

One thing has really struck me - IS did not start lying on 11th April, when he coldly took the life of the woman he professed to love, and to dispose of her body in such a wicked way. No, that wasn't when he started to lie. I actually don't think that he would know the truth if it smacked him around the face, he has become so adept at lying throughout his life. The only way he would be able to attract such a woman as Helen would have been through lying. I feel sure that once he is convicted, other lies about his past will begin to surface.
 
LaDoz

If you sign in today I have a question for your housemate please.

If found guilty, will IS get his share ofthe property back PLUS a proportionate increase in the resale value of the Royston House or will this fall under the Forfeiture Law? His contribution was £470,000 on an original price of £1.2 million. The property we believe may now be worth £2.5 million. Pro rata for his investment he would expect his share to have risen to (very roughly) £800,000. Will the amount over and above his original investment be unavailable to him due to the Forfeiture Law?

If this money is not available to him will his dependants (ie his sons) be in line to receive it?

TIA
 
Interested Bystander said:
The problem is he is not her spouse.
Click to expand...

No, but this discussion was prompted by a suggestion that he put off marrying Helen because he wouldn't then be able to provide for his sons. I don't think that had anything to do with it myself.
 
Where is Judge Judi , not like her to miss a possible verdict day

and come to think of it MillyM?
 
10:06
Case is about to start

We are waiting for jurors to come in now. Stewart is sitting in the dock wearing a striped shirt with a white collar.
 
Cherwell said:
It was only in joint names to avoid double stamp duty when it was bought. I see no reason why he couldn't leave his interest in the house to his sons. This is something that could easily have been dealt with with the help of a solicitor and/or financial advisor.
If he had died, Helen would most probably have moved back to London so the house would have been sold anyway.
Click to expand...

Does the reason for the house being put in joint names make any difference in law? I guess they could have been 'tenants in common' rather than joint tenants, whereby (I have just learned) he can bequeath his half. Maybe at the time he didn't want to raise this, given that Helen was putting in the lion's share. I guess we'll never know the real reason that he did such a despicable, cowardly thing. Helen was obviously looking forward to marrying him right up until the killed her. Its almost as if he had some desperate reason to make sure they didn't marry (but couldn't bring himself to give up the lifestyle she had provided for him and his sons and simply split up with her) and it got more and more urgent as she was more and more looking forward to and planning a wedding. So unbelievably sad that her life was taken this way, probably believing right up until the moment of death that he was something special.
 
Cherwell said:
No, but this discussion was prompted by a suggestion that he put off marrying Helen because he wouldn't then be able to provide for his sons. I don't think that had anything to do with it myself.
Click to expand...

Thanks Cherwell. I missed that. I read the board with latest first rather than than latest last. I have fallen into this trap on many occasions. Slapped wrists.
 
Alyce said:
10:06
Case is about to start

We are waiting for jurors to come in now. Stewart is sitting in the dock wearing a striped shirt with a white collar.
Click to expand...

I am incensed he is wearing stripes :maddening:
 
Alyce said:
10:06
Case is about to start

We are waiting for jurors to come in now. Stewart is sitting in the dock wearing a striped shirt with a white collar.
Click to expand...

Ach I'm annoyed with him for even daring to wear stripes when stripes were Helen's thing. I think I might have become emotionally invested :blushing:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 113 more.
Total: 494 (members: 114, guests: 380)

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
380
Total visitors
494
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,355
Messages
18,238,145
Members
234,351
Latest member
nh_lopez
Back
Top