Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,544
- Reaction score
- 16,776
Here's an old article in the Daily Mail, which has a photo of a younger Helen with her husband.
Here's an old article in the Daily Mail, which has a photo of a younger Helen with her husband.
Beautifully written angle, Dolly Diamond, of how it is to be subjected to duping. Thank Goodness you came through and are here - but it must have been such a heartbreaking and self-diminishing time for you.
I was reading a part of Helen's book this afternoon when she first shared a weekend with her GGW and how she could eat again, and read the Sunday Papers after a terrible time of when she drank wine from a whisky glass, with her jacket still on, after an evening out. Where she kicked a dropped piece of shortbread across the kitchen - too in despair to lift it - and when she allowed Boris to jump onto her bed with muddy paws and couldn't care.Helen describes herself as a very exacting person - and so when she reached this point of Grief and natural 'Depression' - she was so open to attracting the very person who seemed right for her, and yet was the very person to avoid. (the last two lines I write with direct experience). Dear Helen - so kind and gracious towards Oliver and Jamie - weeping that she is there only because their Mother is not.
No wonder - apart from Justice - we are all deeply engaged here. And so grateful to all the accomplished Web Sleuths who, brilliantly, give us ongoing answers.
I think my memory is playing tricks. For some reason I thought IS first spent time with Helen a year after her husband's death. So did she start seeing him almost immediately after losing her husband?
I think my memory is playing tricks. For some reason I thought IS first spent time with Helen a year after her husband's death. So did she start seeing him almost immediately after losing her husband?
I do NOT believe IS shall ever plead 'guilty' - I believe he may try to manoeuvre his Defence against the Prosecution .. but WHY would he ever confess to being to blame when he seems to think of himself as the victim. BUT - would love him to make it easier for Helen's family and friends ... and honour Helen in all she bestowed upon him before this terrible death of her and her beloved Boris.
I think I read that Ian proposed to her a year after JS death. He met her about 5 months after JS death. Must be up thread.
about six months after John died, and at a time when life was so painful I was praying to spontaneously combust in the street rather than continue to live without him, something horrific happened in Marks & Spencer.
Whilst taking a shortcut through the women’s underwear department, out of the blue, I had a seriously X-rated thought about Ian, a widower I’d met through an online bereavement group...
The guilt over something I hadn’t yet done with a man I hadn’t yet met and who hadn’t even hinted at romance followed me everywhere, and when one morning my first thought wasn’t to look at the empty pillow next to me, but to grab my phone to see whether Ian had sent me a text, it plunged me into a spiral of despair and confusion.
When months later Ian and I eventually met, instead of a white horse, he turned up in a battered red Ford Mondeo estate with a Micky Mouse car aerial topper. ..
At first, I kept our relationship quiet, not through shame that I’d begun to date before the first anniversary of John’s death had passed (though this didn’t sit easily with me), but because if I had fallen in love too quickly with the wrong man I wanted to make that mistake in private.
There's an tragic bit in her book about how the traits you appreciate in a partner when you're grieving can turn out to be suffocating further down the line. She is writing in the context of being sure that she avoided this pitfall, but given that it looks like she met her death through genuine suffocation it sent shivers down my spine.
As I said earlier, I still so hope that somehow IS could be innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of those who loved and trusted him. I can't see how it could be though.
Welcome ☺The earlier speculation about IS's mental diagnosis - psychopath? narcissistic PD? etc triggered a couple of thoughts:
1. I understand that psychopathy alone isn't sufficient to establish a defence of "mental insanity". Though there's some debate among criminologists as to whether severe personality disorders should be included - psychopaths/sociopaths are a severe version of antisocial personality disorder - the current UK law test seems to be that if the person had the capacity to know that the conduct was wrong (eg wasn't suffering from delusions), then even if their personality disorder impaired their ability to control themselves to not act in that 'wrong' way, it doesn't amount to a defence of 'mental insanity'.
(This is an Australian link, but references the UK position http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/_files/P97-ch05.pdf see page 232)
2. This did cause me to speculate, however, whether there is a remote possibility IS could truly have suffered a mental event eg a psychotic break and accompanying delusions, perhaps triggered by PTSD from losing his first wife and the stress of his recent cancer scare. Could voices in his head have told him to drug HB and then finally do away with her etc. Would reconcile the very different version of his character we've heard from his wife's parents etc and from Helen herself. (I realise the 'false self' of a manipulative sociopath or narcissist also explains it...) Also may tie in with Helen's comment to her friend that the TLC was wearing thin in caring for IS - perhaps he was exhibiting genuinely new negative personality changes. Having some family experience with schizophrenia, people can experience a strong delusion in one aspect of their life, while still behave logically and function and come across normally in other aspects. Having said all that, I have no mental health qualifications and we are only seeing snippets of the person, but think the evidence indicates too much cold premeditation etc to be a true result of a mental delusion.
Separately on the drugging of Helen in advance I kind of see two general theories:
1. It ties into a potential diagnosis of a covert narcissist or similar and it was about the 'high' of secret control and damage to an otherwise impressive person and the eventual murder was either accidental or an escalation of that pathology; or
2. It was true cold, logical machiavellian planning - not just to make it easier to overpower her, but also to support the 'story' of her running off and disappearing. That 'story' becomes more believable if she's been acting strangely in the preceding months and third parties (such as her poor mother!) can give evidence of this being the case. In this version, the body was never to be found.
I wonder if the discussions in court today may be to point out to IS that he has to take the stand if he wants to rely on this Nick and Joe tale, and if he doesn't he may as well plead guilty now as the judge would direct the jury this way in the event it concludes the way that it is presently going. This may also explain why the prosecution have been playing such a soft approach with their witnesses, they know that IS will dig himself into a big cess pit if he ever did take the stand.I agree 100% he will never admit to what he has done or face up to the reality of who he is. To feign innocence with the clearly bogus story of third-party involvement is the only way he can lay claim to a shred of human decency - no matter how fanciful and ridiculous that course may be. If a psychopathic murderer is capable of caring about anyone other than himself, then it is possible he cares about his sons' view of him and won't totally tarnish that by confirming their worst fears. If he can give them even an atom of hope that he isn't a monster, by telling yet another pack of lies, he will do it. Of course it's entirely possible IS is so narcissistic and deluded he actually believes he can persuade a jury of his innocence. After all, he persuaded a highly intelligent, multi millionaire author he is a man worthy of marriage - perhaps after that he feels he is invincible. And if, as others have gently suggested, he was involved in foul play of any kind in the past and got away with it, this too could give him an inflated sense of power. I feel sure his Not Guilty plea will remain in place - the big question for me is whether or not he will decide to take the stand.
I think I you've summed up my thoughts very well with regard to IS,for the sake of those who know and love him. I agree that it looks too cut and dried against him for that though.
Am wondering what this stuff in court today is about. Perhaps the judge saying to him "come on Mr Stewart, the evidence here against you is shocking, are you sure you don't wish to change your plea".
But then I guess they don't do that.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'd not considered that second option, although I would expect in that case for IS to be playing the concerned loving partner more than he was. That said, I suppose he wasn't about to start ringing the police at any point before he "had" to.
At this stage it will gain him zero credit - the trial is too far gone already
My guess is he wont be changing any pleas.........although I cannot work out what the reason for tomorrow's court appearance is
eta :welcome: Moll