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

[Cherwell]

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

If it's a victim support page or similar, it is OK to post a link. Or you could just give the name of the page.
There isn't a complete blanket ban on Facebook pages.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?291123-Social-Media-Facebook-Twitter-etc

 

[DollyDiamond]

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.

My understanding is that the jury can convict if they believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if they feel all the evidence added together forms a compelling picture that he is guilty, that is good enough. Also IS is really a textbook Guilty defendant - he had the classic MMO - Means, Motive and Opportunity. The idea that anyone but him carried out the murders of Helen and her dog doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Unless of course the Defence produce something incredible to back up his Nick and Joe tall-tale. But I think that unlikely.

 

[DollyDiamond]

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.

OMG - I had no idea about his attempted manipulation of the BBC and Facebook/Helen's friends to suit his own ends, that is shocking! What kind of man takes the life of a 51 year old woman and her dog and then acts is though HE is the victim? The more I hear about this odious snake the more fervently I hope he will die in prison and never, ever walk freely among decent people again.

 

[DollyDiamond]

BIB which a genuine, decent person would have done.
But, it would have meant giving up his luxury lifestyle and local boy done good image and moving , as you say, to a smaller property. I really don't think he was prepared to relinquish all that he had gained from Helen.

I agree - he didn't want Helen but wanted her money and lifestyle so much he would kill her and Boris for it. I have to say I take issue with the idea he 'fell out of love' with Helen - a man capable of the outrages he committed is, in my view, incapable of loving anyone but himself. Personally, I don't believe he was ever in love with her for a nanosecond. There are ruthless individuals out there who will marry people they don't love for material gain and Lord knows that is mercenary enough. Most do not take it to the next level and commit murder for financial reward, as IS did. If only Helen had realised her mistake, broken off the relationship and started her life again as a single woman. I can imagine her writing some wonderful pieces about her mid-life broken engagement and the fact she realised before it was too late it was only a rebound relationship. But the stakes are so much higher with middle aged dating and I suspect she would not have relished the prospect of growing old alone. I so wish she had been allowed the opportunity to do so.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Those cadaver dogs are AMAZING.

I love them so much. Indicating in the corner of the floor above, 3 months after the fact. Just wow.

I know, those sniffer dogs are amazing. And as an aside, as a dog lover myself I was struck by the irony of the police dogs searching for poor little Boris.

 

[DollyDiamond]

and here he is in wooing mode 2012



Telling people what they want to hear - cliches - this is for public consumption - it doesn't feel from the heart IMO

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

It's from the comments under the blog post.

And now 'the journey's end' IS known, reading his loving words to Helen makes my blood run cold.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Many dangerous psychopaths are bland, inoffensive, unmemorable Mr Averages, like IS. They deliberately keep friendships to a minimum and on a shallow footing - they do not want to risk anyone getting to know the real them. It is not surprising to me that Helen's friends and family report only having met IS rarely. She was close to her brother, yet she and IS did not apparently meet up with him and his partner often. This will have been IS' doing - not Helen's.

Human beings don't over-analyse each other, to a great extent we see others as we want to see them, and accept themn at face value. Helen saw IS as a great guy - she lived with him for 5 years without recognising the darkness in his soul. No one would ever have guessed what he was capable of. And of course Helen's stamp of approval on him, meant her friends and family simply assumed he must be a decent guy. Fundamentally, if you are not a psychopath yourself, how could you ever recognise someone who is? It simply isn't on your radar.

 

[Duchy]

Didn't Helen ask IS to take boxes to the dump the day she disappeared/was murdered?

Could he have transferred scent from himself after handling Helen's dead body after going into the room to get boxes to take to the dump? We only have his word that Helen put the boxes in the car.

PS the reason I post at silly o'clock is because I am on night duty :shush:

 

[Annad]

I feel that the prosecutions case is weakened by having no strong motive - so far. Although one might yet come up during the trial. There was no event for IS to chose that day to murder HB, no waiting mistress or large debt. Due to his ineptness at covering his tracks, I think he might have just overdosed HB accidentally. Someone who is very heavily sedated might fall on their face and smother themselves. But if he or his defence does not bring up this during the trial - admit he drugged her then the jurors can not evaluate manslaughter rather than murder.


I am in two minds whether this was a deliberate or accidental killing (Little Boris was always murder). But he defiantly did drug her. Was he an evil sadistic psychopath enjoying manipulating people's minds or was he just an inept, lazy, malingering covert narcissist trying to grab the power in the relationship because she had the money. He did have a motive to drug her.


I am also now wondering why a highly sociable woman like HB saw so little of her family and friends - at least as a couple. Her brother John had met IS one or twice - even after a relationship of 5 years and living only a couple of hours apart. I wonder if all those Christmas days were spent only with his family. How lonely. Was he trying to put a wedge between HB and her family (she seemed to communicate at least with her mother by phone very regularly). Another technique of the abuser.

 

[Tortoise]

I think they've shown a very strong motive. He stood to inherit everything and thought he could use her Power of Attorney in the event of her disappearance. If he'd married and divorced, he wouldn't have had that amount in a financial settlement.

 

[Alyce]

I agree - he didn't want Helen but wanted her money and lifestyle so much he would kill her and Boris for it. I have to say I take issue with the idea he 'fell out of love' with Helen - a man capable of the outrages he committed is, in my view, incapable of loving anyone but himself. Personally, I don't believe he was ever in love with her for a nanosecond. There are ruthless individuals out there who will marry people they don't love for material gain and Lord knows that is mercenary enough. Most do not take it to the next level and commit murder for financial reward, as IS did. If only Helen had realised her mistake, broken off the relationship and started her life again as a single woman. I can imagine her writing some wonderful pieces about her mid-life broken engagement and the fact she realised before it was too late it was only a rebound relationship. But the stakes are so much higher with middle aged dating and I suspect she would not have relished the prospect of growing old alone. I so wish she had been allowed the opportunity to do so.

I agree. I do wish she had realised what she was living with and moved on so that it would have all been alright in the end - to quote Helen.
When we first saw the page of her new website , last year, it did seem as though she had had a change of heart and direction. But sadly, as the evidence has now proven, she had not.

http://andbeyond.life/


just reposted the link to save having to go back to earlier thread

 

[Alyce]

From Friday January 27 evidence....

Couple had £20,000 in joint account

In the final prepared statement given to the jury, which existed before the interviews on July 12, Stewart said: “Helen and I both have personal bank accounts and one joint account. “We both contribute £600 per month to the joint account. This is for household expenditure. “I have not tried to set up new standing orders from Helen’s personal account to our joint account. “I have not changed the existing standing order from Helen’s account from £600 to £4,000 per month. We have in excess of £20,000 in our joint account’.”


My question is, where did ISs £600 contribution come from ?

We know he had not been in paid employment for some years ( exactly how many we don't know ) and we know that Helen was concerned re his possible financial vulnerability,to the extent of leaving him all her cash/assets. Which further indicates that he did not have large cash reserves himself.

He would not have been able to claim any form of unemployment benefit as he was living with Helen, as a couple - he was not a tenant or lodger, which would have allowed a benefits claim.
He may ( I am not sure ) have been able to claim a disability benefit, but I don't believe that would produce £600 per month.

And finally, although I realise that much of what comes out of ISs mouth is lies, surely he can't lie about this aspect, as it is very easy for the police to check the joint account finances.

 

[Annad]

I think they've shown a very strong motive. He stood to inherit everything and thought he could use her Power of Attorney in the event of her disappearance. If he'd married and divorced, he wouldn't have had that amount in a financial settlement.

Yes true, and premeditated.

 

[BatFace]

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.

This, to me, sums up the case for the prosecution. I can't see how they can find anything other than a Guilty verdict.

 

[Florrie]

From Friday January 27 evidence....

Couple had £20,000 in joint account

In the final prepared statement given to the jury, which existed before the interviews on July 12, Stewart said: “Helen and I both have personal bank accounts and one joint account. “We both contribute £600 per month to the joint account. This is for household expenditure. “I have not tried to set up new standing orders from Helen’s personal account to our joint account. “I have not changed the existing standing order from Helen’s account from £600 to £4,000 per month. We have in excess of £20,000 in our joint account’.”


My question is, where did ISs £600 contribution come from ?

We know he had not been in paid employment for some years ( exactly how many we don't know ) and we know that Helen was concerned re his possible financial vulnerability,to the extent of leaving him all her cash/assets. Which further indicates that he did not have large cash reserves himself.

He would not have been able to claim any form of unemployment benefit as he was living with Helen, as a couple - he was not a tenant or lodger, which would have allowed a benefits claim.
He may ( I am not sure ) have been able to claim a disability benefit, but I don't believe that would produce £600 per month.

And finally, although I realise that much of what comes out of ISs mouth is lies, surely he can't lie about this aspect, as it is very easy for the police to check the joint account finances.

You are right regarding disability benefit...even at the max it would be nowhere near £600 a month.

My son gets disability benefit as he is autistic....lower rate mobility and medium rate care is around £300 a month.

Would be interesting to know where IS was getting his income from.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[pinklilies]

Deleted

 

[Interested Bystander]

You are right regarding disability benefit...even at the max it would be nowhere near £600 a month.

My son gets disability benefit as he is autistic....lower rate mobility and medium rate care is around £300 a month.

Would be interesting to know where IS was getting his income from.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe he did not put all the proceeds of his house sale into the house in Royston or, possibly, his late wife had a life insurance where he would have been the beneficiary.

 

[ZaZara]

Big thanks to everybody & the ususal suspects for Friday's updates! :loveyou:


I would have been so interested to hear more about the sewage system and the connection between the cesspit and the septic tank, but if that isn't happening, so be it.
The pictures and the testimonials about the excavation are impressive enough. If anything, they prove that he meant bussiness and was never planning to remove her remains. I suspect he must have measured the opening beforehand, to see if she would fit through. IMHO he would not, given his expanding waistline.

If I read the comments well, HB was robbed twice after JS' death: once by IS and before that by her husband's associate in the other firm, the one who testified on Friday saying he had no financial claims on her???

:gaah::gaah:

 

[Cherwell]

The new blog was going to replace the Planet Grief one, not the website about her books.

Re the sewage system, I guess this was all explained to the jury during the house visit, so didn't need to be repeated in court.

And the finances: Both the sons are working, so perhaps they were giving him money towards the household expenses?

 

[snoopydog]

If it's a victim support page or similar, it is OK to post a link. Or you could just give the name of the page.
There isn't a complete blanket ban on Facebook pages.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?291123-Social-Media-Facebook-Twitter-etc

It's a private group. You can't see it unless you're a member and you can't join unless you're widowed and someone invites you. <modsnip>

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk