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

[cottonweaver]

I think that "axial diffusion" (grossly simplified) just means that traces of the drug could seep down the hairshaft, and thus aren't necessarily indicative of doping done at an earlier date.

Nicely explained , thankyou. ( It took me pages of dense jargon to work that out, should have just asked on the thread)

 

[Annad]

In my opinion it is very likely that everyone would have the wrong measure of him, only because Helen had shared an intimate life with him for 5 years, and she had no clue. Had she an inkling, she would not have been looking at wedding dresses.

In the testimonies so far, HBs friends and family only met IS once or twice, if ever. No one ever really knew him or their relationship. It was only hearsay from Helen. It seems IS wanted to hid the wedding more than HB as HB told her brother and some friends, IB only confirmed it with his family once the cat was out of the bag.

Also IS sons and the girlfriend Alex were the only ones to mention any tension - so it was not prefect.

EDIT: An additional thought has occurred to me. I remember that HBs brother John had only met IS a couple of times before her dissapearance (please correct me if I am wrong here). How can you have a relationship for 5 years and still only met your 'in laws' a couple of times when you live just a couple of hours apart! esp if you are on good terms. IS didn't work - so could not use that excuse. I see my adult nephew a couple of times a year and he lives 1000 km away. I speak to my mother in law once a week and she lives on the other side of the world! How can 'happy' families not communicate and socialise?

 

[snoopydog]

Something has gnawed at me almost from start of this case last year. This statement from Jay Nolen-Latchland today and the evidence from two during trial contain, for me, a factor which is red flagging. I don't know if for anyone else, but this won't leave my head.

Can someone pm me about this? I'm missing what the thoughts everyone's having they don't want to mention.... am a bit slow off the mark today :-/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

The version of IS' phone call to 101 to report Helen missing in the DM had this portion cut out, strangely. So I'm adding it here for completeness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there any specific concerns, and by that I sort of mean any chance of anything like suicide or self-harm, anything like that?

Well, I would say no, but she has, she has been very, very anxious and very worried about lots of things and she’s a very, she is a worrier, she’s as I say, she is a natural worrier.

Can I just sort of ask what sort of things she’s been worried about like personal things or financial things, or…?

It can be just about anything, it can be big things, whether we, we were planning to get, or we are planning to get married and the venue went wrong, I’ve been ill, her dad’s been ill, my mum’s been ill, um, so she, she had to, she went out just in the morning she went out for a drive in a, in a fairly new car and said ‘I’m never going to drive again’. She did have a little Fiat which she then couldn’t drive, just too scary on the motorways, she got herself a bigger car and then went out in that and then came back and said ‘I’m never going to drive again’.

Ok.

So she is a nervous per…sort of person, nervous worrying person.

So she wouldn’t pose a danger to anyone for example?

No, no, not at all. No, I would say that was …

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Cherwell]

Something has gnawed at me almost from start of this case last year. This statement from Jay Nolen-Latchland today and the evidence from two during trial contain, for me, a factor which is red flagging. I don't know if for anyone else, but this won't leave my head.

Can someone pm me about this? I'm missing what the thoughts everyone's having they don't want to mention.... am a bit slow off the mark today :-/

IMBW but I think it was about this:

“Stewart invited us in for a coffee and showed us round the ground floor of the house, namely the kitchen, hallway and lounge.
As we moved from room to room, Jamie never left his side."

 

[Evendor]

What's the UK law for the jury? Does the jury have to think 100% guilty to reach that conclusion or is most likely acceptable.

IMO at the moment there is no concrete proof it was IS, just all circumstantial. There are other parties that could of known of the cesspit, am I allowed to suggest?. Also his behaviour could in a small chance be explained by somebody who's devoid of emotion as a result of his past.

Also is it possible the cesspit was on accessible plans of the house? Though I admit that is a more difficult one.

Joe and Nick, not entirely sure but after today maybe it has some grounds.

 

[Joely 123]

Thank you Alyce, and others, for the updates from Court and tweets, and for the incredible gifts you have as Websleuths in noticing and researching every angle within this treachery in the murder of Helen Bailey - and the worst grave one could ever be given. I also commend the Search team where they spent almost two days, to carefully preserve Helen and Boris, along with the screens from the Press - to protect their sacredness.

Just a few reflections.

1. Helen had written about her anguish nature. She was writing to heal herself, but also to allow others to feel less afraid of their anxieties. This is, as we know, Writers do. And within Planet Grief, Helen was especially conscious of allowing others to express their truth - to talk about it so they could be stronger and freer.

2. IS read her words - she is SO simpatico. That he may at first been drawn to a beautiful spirit where he felt comfort. He needed this in his life - for healing after the loss of Diane - but Nurse, became Lover and then Saviour.

3. Where Helen was week in the early months - he presented strength - checking on how her 'economy thermostat' was a cheat - comforting her when the 'sewerage' from the next door buildings in Highgate gave her stress and illness. Enabled her to fly again to a beach holiday and try to recover.

4. He knew everything about her - her success, her money her weaknesses, she was the 'OPEN BOOK' - and he had the 'opportunity' of tapping into all of this within her, if he ever chose to manipulate her or any situation.

5. No-one can truly know what their life was in Royston - but I do know how he may have felt in adequate, especially through health and finance, which drives security/insecurity. However, in a quantum leap, I do not understand how this led from an agreed home format to him wishing to be without Helen or how in his mind, to overtake the financial whelm.

6. I am not going to even suggest that I have the wisdom, or ability, of the web sleuths who knock me sideways in their calm search for Justice. But I need to always look to the evidence of Boris. I know it is not clear from post-mortem .. but I do know, however tiny they are, they have inherent protection of their family.
And of themselves .. they have rescued children from bigger dogs - lost their life - but prepared to fight.

7. Only that the Defendant may not be able to 'join up sentences' towards happiness and complete balance with a partner .. may he always needed more self-authority as he has none.

 

[Cherwell]

What's the UK law for the jury? Does the jury have to think 100% guilty to reach that conclusion or is most likely acceptable.

IMO at the moment there is no concrete proof it was IS, just all circumstantial. There are other parties that could of known of the cesspit, am I allowed to suggest?. Also his behaviour could in a small chance be explained by somebody who's devoid of emotion as a result of his past.

Also is it possible the cesspit was on accessible plans of the house? Though I admit that is a more difficult one.

Joe and Nick, not entirely sure but after today maybe it has some grounds.

The jury has to return a unanimous verdict, unless the judge indicates that he will accept a majority verdict. This is not unusual when the jury has been out for several days without reaching agreement. A majority will usually be 11-1 or occasionally 10-2.

Almost all murder cases rely on circumstantial evidence, except for those where there are eye witnesses.

There are a number of people who knew of the existence of the cesspit, but no other who had any apparent motive or opportunity for killing Helen and Boris.

The Joe/Nick story is (in my opinion) the desperate last resort of a cornered rat. It is hogwash. Balderdash. Poppycock.

 

[Tortoise]

What's the UK law for the jury? Does the jury have to think 100% guilty to reach that conclusion or is most likely acceptable.

IMO at the moment there is no concrete proof it was IS, just all circumstantial. There are other parties that could of known of the cesspit, am I allowed to suggest?. Also his behaviour could in a small chance be explained by somebody who's devoid of emotion as a result of his past.

Also is it possible the cesspit was on accessible plans of the house? Though I admit that is a more difficult one.

Joe and Nick, not entirely sure but after today maybe it has some grounds.

The jury has to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, the neighbours knew about the cesspit. And the previous owner. And the guy who came to empty it.

But is it reasonable to think any of these people entered the house at 11am and killed Helen with Ian not knowing? He was in the house at the time Helen's communications stopped. He was also there when Helen's phone rang at 12:15 and went to voicemail.

Is it reasonable to think other people had a motive, or committed this murder, when it is known that Helen was drugged for 3 months and had no injuries?

Or that her dog had to be killed and hidden too?

Or that Helen left a note if she was dead?

Or that IS would dispose of their duvet that very same day, and tell the solicitor Helen was unwell, move his doctors appointment after he was supposed to be there and at the time Helen went off-line, also dispose of her note, also change a standing order that day and put in incorrect passwords.

Then think of why IS would have known about these murderers and not told police, or tried to protect any of them in the house, including his sons.

 

[Joely 123]

Nicely explained , thankyou. ( It took me pages of dense jargon to work that out, should have just asked on the thread)

BUT could not exclude it.

 

[Joely 123]

Sorry - not to throw up 'quotes' and proof. But when Eileen talked of a situation in December, 2015 .. regarding Helen's wellbeing .. I focused on Dr Piper NOT being able to exclude the Zopiclone was introduced to Helen at this time. I don't know - but I was protecting Eileen Bailey's statement when I first looked back on Axial Dimension. And I did some search but your quite right it COULD reflect to December, which makes it A possibility to Eileen and Helen conversation. NOT proven - but open.

 

[cottonweaver]

:goodpost: Joely123. ( your post 427)

I think that's very balanced and a good reasoning of why IS would have been attractive.
The points you made in No. 4 have crossed my mind quite a lot this week.

4. He knew everything about her - her success, her money her weaknesses, she was the 'OPEN BOOK' - and he had the 'opportunity' of tapping into all of this within her, if he ever chose to manipulate her or any situation.

This case is really very sinister but I can't help thinking that he was continually reading her blog and comments and through this he tried to mislead everyone that she may have had some type of nervous breakdown or simply gone off for time out .

I feel he perhaps capitalised on her private thoughts and past history as well as the difficulties and stresses that both had suffered late-winter to spring.

I accept this this may be over-reaching and over-thinking it but he seemed so ready with the litany of troubles - her father ill, stress re wedding, his illness, not long since the 5 yr anniversary of JS's death etc etc. He needed a plausible motive for her to walk out and then presumably come to harm by accident etc. ( he was quite careful to never stretch it to suicide as he knew that was not credible.)

And he needed his plausible "alibi "- that he was too physically sick to have pulled this off.

Baldly put - I think he really timed this based on his careful research of many factors.

 

[Joely 123]

IMBW but I think it was about this:

“Stewart invited us in for a coffee and showed us round the ground floor of the house, namely the kitchen, hallway and lounge.
As we moved from room to room, Jamie never left his side."

And another angle on this is .. IS wanted his 'friend' to be with him whilst the Police moved from room to room in their 'looking around' I wonder IF IS said 'don't leave me alone with them' .. and naturally a Son would support that request. As 'the friend' did when IS was stressed with the Police. (We all know when we are struggling we need that close 'reassurance'.

 

[cottonweaver]

This is the interesting appeal by Ch Insp Julie Wheatley from May 2016 which we'll all remember and which perhaps shows what I mean by IS having this plausible scenario to capitalise upon.

During a conversation that takes just over an hour, Ch Insp Julie Wheatley describes the disappearance of the children’s writer Helen Bailey as “unusual” 10 times, “perplexing” five times and “a mystery” three times. As she explains the lines of inquiry that the police have taken, without uncovering any trace of either Helen or her dachshund, Boris (who went missing at the same time), she apologises for circling around the same words over and again.

“Can you see what I mean? It is quite perplexing. I use that word a lot. It is really perplexing,” she says, pushing her glasses to the top of her head and swivelling on her chair in frustration.

Wheatley says they are still pursuing the theory that she “made herself disappear” as their key line of investigation. The idea is fuelled by a passage in an article she wrote about the experience of being widowed, on her blog Planet Grief, where she recounts a desire to walk out on her first marriage and vanish. I “announced that I was going to disappear,” she wrote. “I’d seen a programme about people who just vanish to start a new life under a new identity, and bolting appealed to me.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/30/helen-bailey-missing-mystery-disappearance-childrens-author

At the time I thought maybe Wheately was trying to psych out her suspect but it seems as if they didn't start considering IS until mid June.

 

[snoopydog]

This is the interesting appeal by Ch Insp Julie Wheatley from May 2016 which we'll all remember and which perhaps shows what I mean by IS having this plausible scenario to capitalise upon.





https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/30/helen-bailey-missing-mystery-disappearance-childrens-author

At the time I thought maybe Wheately was trying to psych out her suspect but it seems as if they didn't start considering IS until mid June.

I'm not sure about this. I thought he'd done something with her after a FB post he did on the 20th of April. I'm sure the police were onto him from the start, based on his behaviour alone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Joely 123]

Cottonweaver - Helen said in her book that she 'had lost it - in breakdown' - and he took that as a line of 'opportunity' toward his 'defence'. This says it all really does't it? He pondered every angle on his 'innocence' for Court. All that you list as reasons for her 'walking' 'escaping' or dying. And the only truth is the latter!

He also had - quite before the trial - the evidence of his desperate health (2013) written by Helen. His Sonsand family didn't need to mention his weak strength - Helen, in her protection, had done that for him.

This 'advantage' he took over her is beyond anything I can quite analyse .. her words, her weaknesses and strength - her view of money and savings - and giving to him all that JS was unable to leave her with - such as a full account of business affairs, passwords etc - and to have SECURITY in the loss of a beloved. The only aspect, it seems, according to this charge of IS, is that he had learned most of the lessons from Helen .. and sadly used them against her very being, her life and her precious Boris.

Strength - is another subject ... the man is weak in mind by able to overpower physically.

 

[snoopydog]

To add to that the same post he replied to with a link to the BBC complaints department so that others could complain on his behalf about the 'media intrusion'. I really wish I'd commented on it at the time because I thought it was a disgrace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherwell]

To add to that the same post he replied to with a link to the BBC complaints department so that others could complain on his behalf about the 'media intrusion'. I really wish I'd commented on it at the time because I thought it was a disgrace.

Where was this, please?

 

[ColourPurple]

To add to that the same post he replied to with a link to the BBC complaints department so that others could complain on his behalf about the 'media intrusion'. I really wish I'd commented on it at the time because I thought it was a disgrace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another example of him trying to manipulate others for his own benefit.

So he tries to get Helen's facebook friends to stop the "press intrusion"... tries to get the mental health nurse to get him out of the police interviews...

You don't just suddenly become that way. I bet he's been manipulating others all his life.

 

[snoopydog]

Where was this, please?

On a fb group page - I'm not linking it or quoting it verbatim because I believe that's not allowed....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk