GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #3

[Alyce]

Just wondering what would have happened to IS's sons' inheritance had IS died first? Presumably if Helen died first , IS got his big inheritance and his sons would then inherit it from him when he died but if he died first would they only get IS's share of the main house? If IS's initial plan was drug Helen enough to get POA could his time in intensive care have made him ponder what would happen if he died before Helen and before he'd got POA. Could that have been what made him decide she must die first?

It would depend what was in ISs Will.

If he had made a Will to match Helen's, then he might have been leaving everything to her in the event of him dying first. In which case sons get nothing.

If his Will left everything to his sons, then yes, all he had to give, by dying first, would be his share of the Royston house ( and any other cash/assets that belonged to him ).

 

[cottonweaver]

Interesting that he chose to be mute as opposed to "no comment. "

IMO he is very savvy ( whilst still making so many errors) , so mute can be construed as broken/overcome whereas repeated "No comments" sound very differerent.
( Reminds me of his unwillingness to appear on the missing appeal televised broadcasts and thus be scrutinised by the general public.)

ETA - later testimony today shows he may have used "no comment" in part of the July 11th arrest video

 

[Alyce]

Video of interview being shown to jury

Jurors will now be shown a video of Stewart’s police interview on July 11 at Stevenage police station. In the video, Stewart said he feels well enough to be interviewed. Stewart immediately denies murdering Helen, disposing of her body or stealing money from her. A prepared statement is now being handed to police from his solicitor. The statement told police that Stewart had nothing further to say. Police however, still continue to ask Stewart questions.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651


this is the Monday July 11 interview, so Helen has not been found at this point

 

[Squamous]

Killing Boris would be no mean feat I would think! He is small but a hound and of a hunting breed, developed to kill, he was young and well and fit. I would have thought he could do a lot of damage before succumbing.

Helen's body was effectively uninjured, I am pretty sure she must have been medically knocked out at the time of her death.

 

[Cherwell]

Just wondering what would have happened to IS's sons' inheritance had IS died first? Presumably if Helen died first , IS got his big inheritance and his sons would then inherit it from him when he died but if he died first would they only get IS's share of the main house? If IS's initial plan was drug Helen enough to get POA could his time in intensive care have made him ponder what would happen if he died before Helen and before he'd got POA. Could that have been what made him decide she must die first?

That is an interesting observation. Of course they would have no claim on any of Helen's assets, so all IS was in a position to leave them in his will was his own assets, including whatever share of the house he owned.

That's assuming he had made a will and that they were the beneficiaries.

 

[MillyM]

What are your thoughts?

The only thing that jumped out to me was this bit



IS was ill in November 2015? Have we heard this before? I know he was ill in 2016 when he had his op but other than his ongoing myasthenia gravis did we know about an illness in November?

Wasn't that for me.

Don't think I can actually state publicly, but I will say that if another party wasn't actually complicit in the deed itself, they may have had knowledge they withheld. Not saying I know for a fact or am right, just more a gut instinct. But it's not changed over the last 8 months, and has been reinforced during the trial.

 

[Alyce]

Interesting that he chose to be mute as opposed to "no comment. "

IMO he is very savvy ( whilst still making so many errors) , so mute can be construed as broken/overcome whereas repeated "No comments" sound very differerent.
( Reminds me of his unwillingness to appear on the missing appeal televised broadcasts and thus be scrutinised by the general public.)

Indeed....reminds me of the police statement re them going to the house with video equipment, to record an interview with IS and his horror at the idea of being filmed.

 

[LozDa]

I'm not sure where some of the frustration is coming from. The police investigation and prosecution case looks pretty strong to me so far. We've still got more evidence to come. Hang tight.

Agreed - very strong so far.

Only a frustration that there is a defence to be heard...

:crazy:

I jest - of course I know how important the defence is and that the whole case is not just a one-sided prosecute-athon! But every now and again I just wish they could say "Look, he did it, alright?" and that would be enough!

:laughing:

Thanks for the bump back down to real life and for reassuring of the work that's been done for the prosecution. Objectively, I know this already. But... unfortunately my brain isn't entirely objective at times!

 

[Cherwell]

Killing Boris would be no mean feat I would think! He is small but a hound and of a hunting breed, developed to kill, he was young and well and fit. I would have thought he could do a lot of damage before succumbing.

A little dog can't do much but wriggle if he's been swept into a bag.

 

[LozDa]

Wasn't that for me.

Don't think I can actually state publicly, but I will say that if another party wasn't actually complicit in the deed itself, they may have had knowledge they withheld. Not saying I know for a fact or am right, just more a gut instinct. But it's not changed over the last 8 months, and has been reinforced during the trial.

For the sake of statistical feedback, I have also had the same thoughts and feel the same way.

 

[cottonweaver]

Killing Boris would be no mean feat I would think! He is small but a hound and of a hunting breed, developed to kill, he was young and well and fit. I would have thought he could do a lot of damage before succumbing.

Helen's body was effectively uninjured, I am pretty sure she must have been medically knocked out at the time of her death.

The vet's pathology and "compromised interpretation" might help re. this unpleasant scenario. I still assume that path would have been able to disclose if there had been bone injuries despite the difficulty of determining much else.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-day-12435557

 

[ColourPurple]

minusfour - this baffles me too, he was presumably counting on the cess pit being a totally safe hiding place for the bodies of Helen and Boris to bide his time for seven whole years before she is declared dead and he gets his pay day. However this perhaps was not such a bad prospect, as he is now living in high style in a mansion and perhaps assumes he will cash in on the sale of her flat up north and have access to her ongoing book royalties? It would appear he did not think he would be regarded as a suspect in her disappearance - bizarre! I don't understand why he didn't try to make her death look like suicide or accident, perhaps dumping her body at the Broadstairs address? The cesspit makes it crystal clear it was foul play.

Bearing in mind his visits to the solicitor about the sale of Helen's flat, it looked like he thought he would get POA while she was missing. Maybe he was planning to sell up, pocket all the cash, not tell the new owners about the cess pit, maybe start a new life abroad somewhere with no extradition agreement with the UK?

 

[Alyce]

Stewart gave no comment answers to questions

The video has now been turned off, after the first 11 minutes, and a second disk will now be played. DC Kerr confirms that throughout the rest of the interview, Stewart continued to answer no comment. Another interview, which took place on the following day (July 12) was also being played. In the second video, Stewart can be seen to be wearing a white t shirt and is sitting with his head resting on one hand.

 

[ColourPurple]

Wasn't that for me.

Don't think I can actually state publicly, but I will say that if another party wasn't actually complicit in the deed itself, they may have had knowledge they withheld. Not saying I know for a fact or am right, just more a gut instinct. But it's not changed over the last 8 months, and has been reinforced during the trial.

Yup it was for both of you lol.
Thanks I get what you mean now and I've pondered it before, but don't get how you came to that conclusion from
the artists Jay's comments.PM if you'd rather not say publicly.

 

[Squamous]

In terms of whether he planned to kill her/put her body in the cesspit, I think any moving of it off the premises would probably have left a big forensic trail. I agree the a Stephen Port style faked suicide would seem like it could have been a good option (though I imagine Helen would get a much more thorough police investigation than Port's victims did), but IS strikes me as a cowardly man and I don't think would have done anything openly audacious.

 

[Alyce]

Stewart warned he was being questioned about 'most serious matter'

In the interview, Stewart said he ‘couldn’t face’ eating anything before the interview. He said there was nothing else he wanted to say since his first interview the previous day. It is stressed by one police officer that Stewart is here for ‘the most serious matter’ someone can be arrested for. He is asked what he can tell police about the death of Helen, to which he does not reply. He reiterates that it is his intention to stay silent during the second interview.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651

this is Tuesday July 12 interview

 

[ColourPurple]

It may be that IS was already feeling unwell, due to the intestines situation. There is a comment on Planet Grief where Helen says things have not been good since before Christmas ( 2015 ).


eta..this was not the thing I was thinking of though

Now if he was feeling ill that far back , again that could fit in with him deciding to start poisoning Helen due to realising he might die before her and never have his full inheritance to pass on to his sons.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Wasn't that for me.

Don't think I can actually state publicly, but I will say that if another party wasn't actually complicit in the deed itself, they may have had knowledge they withheld. Not saying I know for a fact or am right, just more a gut instinct. But it's not changed over the last 8 months, and has been reinforced during the trial.

Yes I think we all know what and who you are referring to and I think it's fair comment, as there were four people living in that house, the crime scene. The police will have ruled out any direct involvement that would result in prosecution. But we will never know if IS has confided anything to his nearest and dearest. I have to say, his mounting hysteria since Helen's murder suggests to me he will have struggled to remain composed and keep his own counsel/keep his trap shut and some version of events (not the true one) could well have been shared at an early stage. We will never know. Nobody is criticising anyone over this incidentally - there is rightly only one man in the dock, and that's IS.

 

[SiSi]

For the sake of statistical feedback, I have also had the same thoughts and feel the same way.

Ditto

 

[Alyce]

Jurors see second interview

Jurors are now being shown the second interview with Stewart on that day, at 1.14pm on July 12. This is Stewart’s third interview since his arrest. Stewart is told that he had been arrested for the murder of Helen’s body, the disposal of her body, and theft. Stewart, again, did not answer any questions asked by police.


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651