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

[cheeseman]

Jeremy Vine is about to discuss this case on Radio 2 if anyone's interested

 

[DollyDiamond]

Dolly, Judge Bright should have commissioned you to write his sentencing remarks.

This was so weak. I'm disappointed.

Hey Tortoise - Really? Gosh that's disappointing. That's one speech I'd have loved to have written!

And my friend the Bish is right (as usual), let IS rot in jail for as long as it takes for him to shuffle off. For a narcissist like him, being deprived of his freedom is the worst possible punishment. I hope he survives most of those 34 years, he will hate every moment! And his thoughts will endlessly turn to the privileged life he could have had, married to a millionaire author. That's a VERY apt punishment!

 

[LozDa]

Also, just before I have to run into a meeting, THANK YOU to Alyce for your updates throughout. I did it for one day and was drained. It's hard work processing the information and also presenting it for others and trying not to fall behind.

You're a wonder and hopefully you know by now that I'm a big fan! :loveyou:

There are others to thank and more to be said, but that will come later. See you all in a bit. Try not to give me 100 new pages to catch up on please!! xx

 

[Duchy]

Can I just say that this forum has given me an astonishing number of new ways in which to describe piles. You are all geniuses lol.


"Chalfonts"; "Arsegrapes" and my personal favourite "Buttock McNuggets"

Inspired.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Haemorrhoid vineyard was my favourite.....priceless.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

BIB I do find that surprising. Not doubting your word for one moment Net, but SRF didnt give me that impression. I felt he did far too much manipulating of the evidence.
Have said it on here before, but I think there is a fine line between Defence Counsel who do their very best , with dignity and thoroughness, for a client who they clearly know is guilty - and the type of Defence SRF produced, which was borderline offensive imo and overly supportive of IS.

I suspect it was the solicitors who loathed him, rather than the barrister. They tend to have much more one to one time with the defendants and would have known him much better.

 

[Belgarion]

The Queen-v Ian Stewart St Albans Crown Court 23rd February 2017
Sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Bright QC

...snipped...

I have been referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of R. vNARENDRA TAILOR 2007 EWCA Crim 1564, which I accept bears some similarities to the facts of this case, in which the Court of Appeal found reasons for reducing the sentence to one below the 30 year starting point set for a murder for gain. In my judgement the Court’s reasoning in the case of TAILOR has no application to the facts of this case.

….looks like Flinty had a last fling and got the brush off!!!

 

[Interested Bystander]

I'm having the same issue!!



Sorry IB, I definitely have missed the post. Bear with me while I get through a busy morning and then I'll have a moment to go back and find it all.

Also - 34!!!!! :fireworks:

Not to worry. I have copied my post to save you searching for it. If and when your housemate has time it would be good to have an opinion.

"LaDoz

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

If found guilty, will IS get his share of the 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"

 

[mrjitty]

I concur Tortoise but I'm consoling myself with the de facto whole life sentence. Everything we discussed is inferred in the sentence. They don't hand out many of those so we know what the Judge really thought.

Perhaps he didn't want to go too off piste in case the shitebag used it as a means to appeal. Play it with a straight bat and all that. Probably wrong but carpe diem and all that!

I wonder if he went a bit heavy on the pour for the first wife

just to be sure....

[wink wink]

 

[neteditor]

BIB I do find that surprising. Not doubting your word for one moment Net, but SRF didnt give me that impression. I felt he did far too much manipulating of the evidence.
Have said it on here before, but I think there is a fine line between Defence Counsel who do their very best , with dignity and thoroughness, for a client who they clearly know is guilty - and the type of Defence SRF produced, which was borderline offensive imo and overly supportive of IS.

Unfortunately all defendants are entitled to a good and proper representation and SRF had to do his job. There were certainly moments where his true feelings leaked out (he groaned when IS got his Monday morning nap time wrong for example). We must never forget a QC is at the height of the advocacy profession. He's not going to put a foot wrong in representing his client no matter what his own feelings are. We shouldn't think badly of him for doing his job. If IS never actually told him he was guilty, he's obliged to defend on the evidence his client gives him to defend on.

 

[Cherwell]

I am very pleased that Boris was mentioned FIVE times in the Judge's full remarks.

 

[neteditor]

I suspect it was the solicitors who loathed him, rather than the barrister. They tend to have much more one to one time with the defendants and would have known him much better.

Indeed, my info didn't clarify, but I think solicitors is more likely given the advocates don't spend a huge amount of time with the client pre-trial.

ETA: Badly worded, I mean the info I received didn't clarify

 

[mrjitty]

On the theme of bad script writers, IS's arrest video really takes the biscuit.

 

[Cherwell]

Unfortunately all defendants are entitled to a good and proper representation and SRF had to do his job. There were certainly moments where his true feelings leaked out (he groaned when IS got his Monday morning nap time wrong for example). We must never forget a QC is at the height of the advocacy profession. He's not going to put a foot wrong in representing his client no matter what his own feelings are. We shouldn't think badly of him for doing his job. If IS never actually told him he was guilty, he's obliged to defend on the evidence his client gives him to defend on.

Fair enough, but he should not deliberately misrepresent the evidence. I do not think he did an honest job.

 

[Tortoise]

I would bet £20 he did for his first wife

£20? I'd bet my house on it.

 

[mrjitty]

I have had good information, I can't say too much about from whom because I'm sworn to secrecy. (It's not OBF!).

The main points are he was under suspicion from the very start, mainly from the way he behaved while alone with family liaison officers and his anxiety whenever the garden was searched. Also his own lawyers absolutely loathed him.

Thanks for the info!

Yes this does not surprise me.

 

[ZaZara]

Hey Tortoise - Really? Gosh that's disappointing. That's one speech I'd have loved to have written!

And my friend the Bish is right (as usual), let IS rot in jail for as long as it takes for him to shuffle off. For a narcissist like him, being deprived of his freedom is the worst possible punishment. I hope he survives most of those 34 years, he will hate every moment! And his thoughts will endlessly turn to the privileged life he could have had, married to a millionaire author. That's a VERY apt punishment!

There is always the possibility that he won't be granted parole at ninety. One never knows how they will calculate the risks 34 years from now.

:thinking:

 

[neteditor]

Fair enough, but he should not deliberately misrepresent the evidence. I do not think he did an honest job.

I agree, and if the court reports were right I think he pushed the envelope too far on more than one occasion. However, I do think that reveals his desperation in a very poor defence case. Not acceptable of course, but in the end hasn't affected the outcome.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Thanks for the Radio 2 tip, its v interesting - Ben Ando "He's not as clever as he thinks he is". Could he have killed his first wife? Geoffrey Wansall, crime writer - "I can't imagine for a moment she died suddenly of epilepsy in the garden, and of course she's been cremated. He got away with it that time, and thought he could again".

Some understated criticism of the police for not finding the body for 3 months. My personal feeling is that their reticence can be partially explained by the wealth and status of the people involved.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

I wonder if he went a bit heavy on the pour for the first wife

just to be sure....

[wink wink]

Hmm, I did wonder. Glad you thought it too..

 

[Alyce]

I suspect it was the solicitors who loathed him, rather than the barrister. They tend to have much more one to one time with the defendants and would have known him much better.

Ah yes, makes sense. Those poor guys must have had hours of having to listen to his every whinge and whine.