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

[Alyce]

Smell from cess pit could have masked scent from body, jury hears

The next witness is PC Solehurst, who is a dog handler. PC Solehurst said he searched the Royston house on July 11. He said his dog didn’t indicate any interest in the garage ground floor, but on the first floor in the corner. At this stage, jurors were told that Helen Bailey’s body was in the cess pit in the garage. He said: “If a body is fresh and covered with excrement, that could mask the scent coming out. “If the cess pit cover was airtight this would have masked the scent.” That’s the end of PC Solehurst’s evidence. That’s the end of evidence for today. The court will resume on Monday, at 10am.

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


my comment - the dog indicated on the first floor in the corner.
I wonder if IS originally left the duvet up here. ( The first floor of the garage was full of boxes and used as storage ).
But then changed his mind, as there was a risk of discovery by other members of the household ?

 

[Alyce]

That’s the end of evidence for today. The court will resume on Monday, at 10am.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Another interesting contradiction in what IS says and what others say

Following the walk on 22 May last year, Stewart messaged Nolan-Latchford to tell her he was going on holiday.

Her statement said: “Out of the blue, on Friday 10 June, the phone rang and he announced that he was going on holiday to Spain. He stated he was going on holiday because he had booked it with Helen and couldn’t get his money back.

“He had decided to go on his own; he also said his mental health adviser had said he needed the break.”

But on Wednesday, psychiatric nurse Sarah Tooley told the court she had not given the defendant any views on the holiday, but simply “went through the plans” with him.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...+theguardian/hJng+(World+news+|+The+Guardian)

Indeed, the weasel clearly wanted to tell third parties his psychiatric nurse had advised him to go on the Majorca holiday - he invited her to do that, but she wisely reserved judgement. Yet he went ahead and told others she had done so, regardless. I guess nothing underhand this man does comes as any surprise - we know the horrors he is capable of so the self-serving lies he tells afterwards are mild by comparison. His most shocking action post murder, in my view, was his statement to police that if Helen came back, he didn't want to be with her any more. Here he is clearly feeling vulnerable and pressured by the police investigation so he lashes out in anger at Helen - blaming her, in effect, for the fact that he has murdered her and may get him into trouble. Unbelievable narcissism!

 

[Squamous]

I'm hunting in her book and there are only veiled references to legal action (not surprisingly). I did find confirmation that there was no mortgage on the London house though (and hence JS had no life insurance).

 

[Florrie]

Indeed, the weasel clearly wanted to tell third parties his psychiatric nurse had advised him to go on the Majorca holiday - he invited her to do that, but she wisely reserved judgement. Yet he went ahead and told others she had done so, regardless. I guess nothing underhand this man does comes as any surprise - we know the horrors he is capable of so the self-serving lies he tells afterwards are mild by comparison. His most shocking action post murder, in my view, was his statement to police that if Helen came back, he didn't want to be with her any more. Here he is clearly feeling vulnerable and pressured by the police investigation so he lashes out in anger at Helen - blaming her, in effect, for the fact that he has murdered her and may get him into trouble. Unbelievable narcissism!

Psychiatric nurses are more than capable of knowing when they are being used in most cases. What a weasel indeed.

No nurse I know would say "oh do go on holiday" they would say exactly what this nurse DID say, that the decision was down to the individual.

The more I am hearing the more I am hating him. And to think Helen dedicated her book to him.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cottonweaver]

I'm hunting in her book and there are only veiled references to legal action (not surprisingly). I did find confirmation that there was no mortgage on the London house though (and hence JS had no life insurance).

It was a HB comment on the blog, but there are so many blog entries and comments....I've been trying to re-find it by going through my history.
Anyway, at least we know "“No one’s demanded any specific amount of money at any stage.” DJensen has said.

I'm still bemused as to why he can remember 2 christian names from a diary that he can't have accessed for 6 months. His lawyers can't have accessed those JS diaries either. Maybe he just has a great memory?

 

[LozDa]

Smell from cess pit could have masked scent from body, jury hears

The next witness is PC Solehurst, who is a dog handler. PC Solehurst said he searched the Royston house on July 11. He said his dog didn’t indicate any interest in the garage ground floor, but on the first floor in the corner. At this stage, jurors were told that Helen Bailey’s body was in the cess pit in the garage. He said: “If a body is fresh and covered with excrement, that could mask the scent coming out. “If the cess pit cover was airtight this would have masked the scent.” That’s the end of PC Solehurst’s evidence. That’s the end of evidence for today. The court will resume on Monday, at 10am.

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


my comment - the dog indicated on the first floor in the corner.
I wonder if IS originally left the duvet up here. ( The first floor of the garage was full of boxes and used as storage ).
But then changed his mind, as there was a risk of discovery by other members of the household ?

I'm never quite sure why things like this are presented - can anyone help me?

There's no question she was in the cess pit, right? So are they just going through the motions of what was done and when, or is this pertinent in any way to either case?

I know it must just be ticking boxes and going through the whole proceedings, but to layman me over here, it almost sounds like they're having to explain away why the dog didn't pick up her scent. But why? Because the defence will say she wasn't there? *insert my layman confused face*!

 

[DollyDiamond]

Maybe it had to do with knowledge of evidence.

If I remember rightly, the main case management hearing ( or pre trial hearing as I think they are now called ) was in October 2016. I think that would be the first time IS and his defence team were given full view of all the evidence held by the Prosecution.

So until October, IS is thinking he will deny everything, no problem.

Then he is told how much evidence the Prosecution has and realises he needs a back up story.
Enter Joe and Nick in December.

Good deduction Alyce - as with so many things in life, timing is all! I certainly think your premise sheds light on his surprise December submission.

 

[ColourPurple]

Why would Jensen lie in court if there had been some sort of litigation and evidence of it published in her blog?

Surely there must also be correspondence between Helen and her accountant etc with respect this money problems with Jensen. He also says there is no ongoing dispute with her. Maybe there was and he dropped it after her death. Economical with the truth maybe?

I noticed he used careful wording. [FONT=&quot]“There is no ongoing dispute between me and Helen Bailey’s estate.”

It doesn't say if there was a dispute in the past between him and [/FONT]John Sinfield’s estate. So maybe there was one and it was resolved which would tie in with Helen's comment on her blog about some legal situation coming to an end. I think I quoted the exact quote from the blog in one of my posts last week but can't find it.

 

[Alyce]

I'm never quite sure why things like this are presented - can anyone help me?

There's no question she was in the cess pit, right? So are they just going through the motions of what was done and when, or is this pertinent in any way to either case?

I know it must just be ticking boxes and going through the whole proceedings, but to layman me over here, it almost sounds like they're having to explain away why the dog didn't pick up her scent. But why? Because the defence will say she wasn't there? *insert my layman confused face*!

I think they're just covering themselves and explaining why a cadaver dog could not have picked up the smell of a body.

But did pick up something in the room above - which is interesting. Wonder why they didnt make more of that. ( my guess was the duvet - see earlier post )

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't think he's denying any litigation, is he? Just the specifics of the questions he is being asked. He's clear that he thinks JS's estate owed this business £30k and that Helen felt the business owed JS's estate.

What he actually said was “There is no ongoing” dispute between me and Helen Bailey’s Estate.” That could be interpreted as maybe there could have been a problem before her death. Hence my comment “ maybe economical with the truth”. I think, more correctly, he should have said there never has been any financial dispute with her. There must have been some sort of communication about the financial situation unless he produced his figures just for his own needs.

However, we are only getting the reporter's precis of his comments so possibly not entirely accurate.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651
The next witness is David Jensen. Giving evidence, Mr Jensen said he came to know Helen Bailey who worked at PSL. He said he worked as financial advisor for the company. Mr Jensen said: “I’d known Helen for many years as a . colleague. I wouldn’t say socially I knew her well at all. “I left PSL in 2005. “There is no ongoing dispute between me and Helen Bailey’s estate.”

 

[Squamous]

The cadaver dog would be a miracle worker if it could detect a body submerged in raw sewage in a sealed chamber under the floor! Interesting about it picking up a scent upstairs in the garage though.

Do the CPS call witnesses who can't add much just for the sake of completion? I imagine they don't want the jury to go out and develop doubts based on not hearing from certain people who could have been key, even though in this case they have nothing to add (like OS' girlfriend Alex or the dog handler).

 

[ColourPurple]

I'm never quite sure why things like this are presented - can anyone help me?

There's no question she was in the cess pit, right? So are they just going through the motions of what was done and when, or is this pertinent in any way to either case?

I know it must just be ticking boxes and going through the whole proceedings, but to layman me over here, it almost sounds like they're having to explain away why the dog didn't pick up her scent. But why? Because the defence will say she wasn't there? *insert my layman confused face*!

Hmmm it would make sense if they were talking about an earlier search because then I'm sure IS would claim that Joe and Nick came back and put Helen in there while he was on holiday . What IS his story going to be anyway? That they punched him in the stomach and then kidnapped or killed Helen while he was there and either put her straight into the cesspit or came back when he was in Broadstairs or on holiday to put her there?

Or is he going to say they must have conveniently turned up again between his visits to the DR, rubbish tip and solicitors... killed Helen, knew instinctively to go into the garage, where there was the perfect hiding spot to put her body and of course her little dog's body... that they killed because?? Whoever killed Boris did it as they knew they were inseparable and that it would look suspicious if Helen had disappeared without him. Do Joe and Nick fit into this category? And how has one of them been "dealt with"?

 

[Squamous]

Hmmm it would make sense if they were talking about an earlier search because then I'm sure IS would claim that Joe and Nick came back and put Helen in there while he was on holiday . What IS his story going to be anyway? That they punched him in the stomach and then kidnapped or killed Helen while he was there and either put her straight into the cess pit or came back when he was in Broadstairs or on holiday to put her there? Or is he going to say they must have conveniently turned up again between his visits to the DR, rubbish tip and solicitors... killed Helen, knew instinctively to go into the garage, where there was the perfect hiding spot to put her body and of course her little dog's body... that they killed because??

And on top of that, he didn't tell the police about it even when he was arrested on suspicion of Helen's murder. Was increasing the standing order part of Joe & Nick's plan? Where might IS claim he thought Helen was all that time?

 

[Alyce]

The cadaver dog would be a miracle worker if it could detect a body submerged in raw sewage in a sealed chamber under the floor! Interesting about it picking up a scent upstairs in the garage though.

Do the CPS call witnesses who can't add much just for the sake of completion? I imagine they don't want the jury to go out and develop doubts based on not hearing from certain people who could have been key, even though in this case they have nothing to add (like OS' girlfriend Alex or the dog handler).

I actually thought AM - OSs gf - did add some useful stuff, albeit unwittingly. She was the only one who aluded to discord in the house and also contradicted OSs own claim that he was not at the house at all on Sunday, apart from 20 minutes in the evening.

 

[icemaiden65]

And on top of that, he didn't tell the police about it even when he was arrested on suspicion of Helen's murder. Was increasing the standing order part of Joe & Nick's plan? Where might IS claim he thought Helen was all that time?

It's those Joe and Nick diary entries that have me really puzzled! Who, how and when?

 

[Squamous]

It's those Joe and Nick diary entries that have me really puzzled! Who, how and when?

They probably fixed the photocopier. I remain unconvinced. Can JS's diary be called to take the stand?

 

[Stumpyaura]

Is this the comment related to Jensen that's been mentioned?


PLANET GRIEF

Reply May 24, 2012
Sue: I wish I could say that the reason I hadn't posted recently was because of being totally loved up with the GGHW, but it has been more to do with an energy-sapping anxiety-producing bill-inducing legal situation which (with a heavy heart) I'm about to walk away from.

Helen posted it as a comment to this blog entryhttp://planetgrief.com/2012/05/17/painful-pleasure/

 

[cottonweaver]

:silly:

yes the photocopier guys will be testifying on Monday!

 

[Alyce]

WHAT?!?! Wasn't IS in police custody for several months before mentioning Nick and Joe? Wonder who actually wrote those references to N and J in the diary(ies) - and are they in John Sinfield's handwriting? I sure didn't see THAT one coming!

Interesting, if IS did indeed add those names - at some point between April and July.
Would mean he had pre planned them, as a back up story if needed.
Held them in reserve until he saw how much evidence the CPS had against him.
When it looked bad, he then brought them into the story line in December.