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

[cottonweaver]

sadly no Stumpyaura as it was later than 2012 and Patrick today alludes to 2014 onwards.

In re-examination by the prosecution, Mr Patrick said the last time Helen spoke of litigation matters was during a phone call in October 2014. “I believe that was in the hands of her accountants and financial advisors by that stage. I’m not sure if lawyers were involved at that time, but it was heading in that direction”. That concludes Mr Patrick’s evidence.

 

[Alyce]

Clearer picture ......can see now how they excavated from the driveway inwards

 

[cottonweaver]

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.

Ooo I missed icemaiden's point until you bumped it up.
Reckon IS is more than happy to do a bit of fake handwriting.

 

[icemaiden65]

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.

My thoughts too Alyce. I wonder if the handwriting's been checked out? Surely it would have been?

 

[Alyce]

 

[cottonweaver]

Anyway question for all posters and lurkers

Who reckons he planned this prior to December, or even much earlier?

 

[Alyce]

My thoughts too Alyce. I wonder if the handwriting's been checked out? Surely it would have been?

One of the sons , cant remember which, talked about seeing a note re Gone to Broadstairs, which he thought was THE note that Helen had left, because he said it looked like her handwriting.
He then found out - ie; was told - that this was a note that IS had written which he intended to leave in the house for Helen, in case she came back home.

So either ISs handwriting bears a remarkable similarity to Helen's ......or he is good at copying other peoples handwriting.

 

[ColourPurple]

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

Or could police not have put an appeal out to idenitify who they were? And like someone else mentioned were they pencilled in after the event in JS's writing style. Was there any additional content or just 2 names popping up in his diary .

 

[Tortoise]

It's quite likely that Helen would have had John Sinfield's diary in her possession. I doubt the trustees of his estate would have hung onto it.

In the six months that he had to languish in his cell, I'm wondering if IS remembered Helen's references to this dispute with Jensen, asked Oliver to search for a diary of John S' and he took it to him on one of his visits. In there he found the names Joe and Nick and had nothing better to use but those names. Opportunism.

His barrister seems to have seen this diary or diaries. How would his legal team have got hold of them or known that John had written it in a diary - even if Helen spoke of problems IS wouldn't know that John S had written two obscure names in his diary and if they were related to the problem with Jensen.

He's either had them brought to him between October and December, or he had time in April - July to root around and find mention of anything he could use as a defence if he was caught. But if the latter it doesn't explain why he never mentioned it until December. Unless even by his own standards he realised it sounded unbelievable and only went with it eventually in desperation.

What a deluded creature.

 

[Alyce]

 

[icemaiden65]

One of the sons , cant remember which, talked about seeing a note re Gone to Broadstairs, which he thought was THE note that Helen had left, because he said it looked like her handwriting.
He then found out - ie; was told - that this was a note that IS had written which he intended to leave in the house for Helen, in case she came back home.

So either ISs handwriting bears a remarkable similarity to Helen's ......or he is good at copying other peoples handwriting.

Hmmmm, good point! I wonder if JS always used the same pen when writing his diary? Would IS (or whoever) have trouble then duplicating the nib width/ink to insert reference(s) to Joe and Nick? Also, age of the writing/ink would come into it if the police used forensics perhaps? Also IS's fingerprints maybe? Just musing.

 

[LozDa]

Or could police not have put an appeal out to idenitify who they were? And like someone else mentioned were they pencilled in after the event in JS's writing style. Was there any additional content or just 2 names popping up in his diary .

I'm assuming this didn't happen because the police wouldn't spend time investigating something they thought to be entirely fictitious; especially if they had (what they considered) to be more than enough evidence to prosecute IS alone. To do a run around asking for the identity of mysterious Nick and Joe, just to humour IS' story, would be a hindrance to the work they needed to do on what they felt were the actual facts of the case.

 

[MillyM]

Just catching up on the afternoon's proceedings.

But hey, Joe and Nick are real after all then - unless fictional characters of JS too!

 

[ColourPurple]

I've found the post I saw where Helen mentioned a legal situation that she was walking away from. Its from way back in 2012 but I'm wondering if this the whole dispute over JS' estate... if so it does look like she walked away from it in 2012 so there is no ongoing legal dispute.

May 24, 2012Sue: 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.

http://planetgrief.com/2012/05/17/painful-pleasure/#comments

ETA Whoops I see stumpyaura found it too. Thank you stumpyaura

 

[ColourPurple]

It's quite likely that Helen would have had John Sinfield's diary in her possession. I doubt the trustees of his estate would have hung onto it.

In the six months that he had to languish in his cell, I'm wondering if IS remembered Helen's references to this dispute with Jensen, asked Oliver to search for a diary of John S' and he took it to him on one of his visits. In there he found the names Joe and Nick and had nothing better to use but those names. Opportunism.

His barrister seems to have seen this diary or diaries. How would his legal team have got hold of them or known that John had written it in a diary - even if Helen spoke of problems IS wouldn't know that John S had written two obscure names in his diary and if they were related to the problem with Jensen.

He's either had them brought to him between October and December, or he had time in April - July to root around and find mention of anything he could use as a defence if he was caught. But if the latter it doesn't explain why he never mentioned it until December. Unless even by his own standards he realised it sounded unbelievable and only went with it eventually in desperation.

What a deluded creature.

I was thinking along those lines too. No need to take the diary to him. Just find it, read it and report back and presumably eventually hand it over as evidence.

 

[Squamous]

For Joe and Nick to be in JS' diary we must be talking more than six years ago really. I doubt IS would go to the trouble of falsifying stuff. I think it's pretty far fetched for them to jump straight from pre-2011 to murdering Helen in 2016 without being heard of by anyone in between.

 

[Alyce]

Or could police not have put an appeal out to idenitify who they were? And like someone else mentioned were they pencilled in after the event in JS's writing style. Was there any additional content or just 2 names popping up in his diary .

As Loz said, not sure the police would bother...but it will be most interesting to see if the Defence have done anything.
But then again, it is not part of their remit to prove their client didnt do it, so possibly they wont.

 

[ColourPurple]

I'm assuming this didn't happen because the police wouldn't spend time investigating something they thought to be entirely fictitious; especially if they had (what they considered) to be more than enough evidence to prosecute IS alone. To do a run around asking for the identity of mysterious Nick and Joe would, just to humour IS' story, would be a hindrance to the work they needed to do on what they felt were the actual facts of the case.

Maybe, but personally I wish they had dotted the is and crossed the ts cause he's one sneaky, manipulative piece of work and he only has to raise enough doubts in a few jurors minds.

 

[Alyce]

I was thinking along those lines too. No need to take the diary to him. Just find it, read it and report back and presumably eventually hand it over as evidence.

Hope not, because if he did that, then he has lied in court.

 

[ColourPurple]

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 )

You know I wondered if the duvet/cover he threw away wasn't so much soiled but that he worried that cadaver dogs would react to it if it was in contact with a deceased Helen. Then I thought no, only websleuthers and the like would know that it would retain the odour.