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

[Interested Bystander]

I think the wording of 'the main Royston house' commented on by Interested Bystander, reposted by Alyce above, is only odd because it needs brackets or commas round either 'main' or 'Royston' - i.e. the house was both their main one and their Royston one.
Just shows that punctuation can be crucial!

Moll, thank you for commenting. I think, perhaps, I was unclear. I understood the Cambridge News quote to mean that he would inherit £1.8 million as well as the Royston and the Broadstairs houses. What I am querying is why, nowhere, can I find in print that he was actually co-owner of the Royston house.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Hi I live in Royston and have been following this closely. I felt compelled today to come to court only to find out it's only paper work and no sitting until tomorrow. I will be going along tomorrow morning too to see what happens.

Hi Matthew. Welcome to the thread. We all will be very interested to hear your comments. It means so much more to have somebody actually attending the proceedings. We do have one or two others who can attend on some days but not all. With an added person it means, we shall get excellent coverage of what actually happens each day. I look forward to your comments on Friday's sessions.

 

[pinklilies]

Moll, thank you for commenting. I think, perhaps, I was unclear. I understood the Cambridge News quote to mean that he would inherit £1.8 million as well as the Royston and the Broadstairs houses. What I am querying is why, nowhere, can I find in print that he was actually co-owner of the Royston house.

Is this any help Bystander?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/helen-baileys-beloved-dog-killed-9600128

When the couple bought their home together in 2013, Helen put in the majority of the money, the court heard. Mr Trimmer said if she died Stewart stood to inherit assets worth £1.8million in addition to the Royston house and Broadstairs property.

 

[Cherwell]

From Alyce's repostings:

the value of the main Royston house and the second home in Broadstairs

I wouldn't even hesitate over that - to me the meaning is plain: the main residence and a second home

This is slightly misleading though, IMO

a second home they shared in Broadstairs, Kent

That phrase might suggest that IS had a share in it. But the Broadstairs house was 100% Helen's, because it dates back to when she was married to JS.

 

[Moll]

I did realise that was your main concern, Interested Bystander, but as you said 'Why would he have said “the value of the main Royston house” and not just the Royston House.' I thought you were also puzzled by the implication that there was another one!

 

[Legally Bland]

Time posting is wrong.... the time now is 11.44am as i post this

Hi and welcome.

The timestamps are personal based on your settings. Click settings in the top right of the screen. Then general settings in the menus on the left of the screen. Scroll down to the time options and choose GMT Western Europe. Directly below that select automatically detect daylight saving time. Scroll to the bottom and click save changes.

Hope that helps.

 

[Squamous]

Is this any help Bystander?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/helen-baileys-beloved-dog-killed-9600128

When the couple bought their home together in 2013, Helen put in the majority of the money, the court heard. Mr Trimmer said if she died Stewart stood to inherit assets worth £1.8million in addition to the Royston house and Broadstairs property.

Presumably this is all down to Helen's generous will rather than the sort of arrangements that would happen if she'd died intestate or if their relationship had come to an end.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Just a couple of new things I hadn't seen in the tweets this week, or may have just missed -


DC Hollie Daines said the defendant had told police he “must be” a suspect. She told the trial: “I found his behaviour generally quite unexpected at times: he had already snapped at me a couple of times when I was asking him to do an interview. I found him rude, temperamental, uncooperative and dismissive of us.”
.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...s-mother-eileen-memory?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other



And -

Breaking down, her mother added: “I feel I was dismissive.”
One juror could be seen quietly wiping away tears after hearing Mrs Bailey’s emotional evidence.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26887...ationship-with-fiance-accused-of-killing-her/

Yes, all very revealing. I've been amazed at how quick IS was to show stress and temper in the weeks following Helen's 'disappearance'. It seems to me he honestly didn't expect there to be quite such a fuss, as if this was a missing umbrella rather than a missing person! His mounting hysteria about police searches at his home reveals he was hard-nosed enough to kill her and Boris but not it seems mentally strong enough to deal with the fallout. The murder was pre-planned but he hadn't given quite so much thought to the rollercoaster ride that would inevitably follow. And how quickly he played the mental health card and tried to hide behind nursey's skirts to keep the police at arms length! I was struck too that his parents visited the Royston home (little knowing the horrors that lay there). The thought of this big self pitying baby leaning on his elderly parents for emotional support after what he had done to Helen and Boris makes me sick to my stomach!

Heartbreaking when Helen's 90 year old mother broke down over having been dismissive of Helen's concerns over her mystery drowsiness. This gave us an inkling of the endless 'if only's' Helen's family and friends must feel, over not recognising the terrible danger she was in from this man.

 

[Rayemonde]

Hi I live in Royston and have been following this closely. I felt compelled today to come to court only to find out it's only paper work and no sitting until tomorrow. I will be going along tomorrow morning too to see what happens.

:wagon::greetings::welcome6:

 

[Alyce]

Moll, thank you for commenting. I think, perhaps, I was unclear. I understood the Cambridge News quote to mean that he would inherit £1.8 million as well as the Royston and the Broadstairs houses. What I am querying is why, nowhere, can I find in print that he was actually co-owner of the Royston house.

That was how I read it too.

The early evidence does say that Helen put in the majority of the money for Hartwell Lodge - therefore IS must have put in some money as well. So he has at least a share, but a minority one.

 

[pinklilies]

Presumably this is all down to Helen's generous will rather than the sort of arrangements that would happen if she'd died intestate or if their relationship had come to an end.

Of course it is but it doesn't change the fact she did apparently make the will with those bequeaths.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/live-day-one-murder-trial-12427078

12:58
Author made a will in 2014, naming Stewart as the beneficiary

The prosecution state that on the event of her death, Stewart would benefit from £1.8million in addition to the value of the main Royston house and the second home in Broadstairs. Helen Bailey made a will in 2014 - she was apparently concerned that Stewart might be financially vulnerable if she died.

She expressly provided that her marriage to Stewart would not automatically revoke her will, as would otherwise have been the case. A Power of Attorney was registered in May 2015, giving control of her affairs in favour of the defendant and her brother John Bailey should she become unfit to administer her own affairs. The defendant twice enquired about this, requesting copes of it in June 2016 when Helen was still regarded as ‘missing’.

 

[Squamous]

I'm intrigued by the marriage not overriding her will. I struggle to understand the motivation for that given that she seemed to be anxious to leave IS in a good financial position.

 

[pinklilies]

I'm intrigued by the marriage not overriding her will. I struggle to understand the motivation for that given that she seemed to be anxious to leave IS in a good financial position.

Is it because nothing would change once they were married, therefore saves her having to make another one, after they were married.

 

[Squamous]

Is it because nothing would change once they were married, therefore saves her having to make another one, after they were married.

I've no idea - I would have thought if they were married then IS would automatically inherit pretty much everything? I have no expertise at all.

Part of me has wondered if it might be better financially for him if she died before they were married but I don't have enough knowledge!

 

[snoopydog]

I've no idea - I would have thought if they were married then IS would automatically inherit pretty much everything? I have no expertise at all.

Part of me has wondered if it might be better financially for him if she died before they were married but I don't have enough knowledge!

It would be on the basis that she wouldn't have spent whatever she was going to on the Wedding..... maybe 15-20k at least....

 

[Cherwell]

There probably are some minor bequests, in which case she would have wanted those to stand after her marriage. Perhaps some to charities.

 

[Interested Bystander]

That was how I read it too.

The early evidence does say that Helen put in the majority of the money for Hartwell Lodge - therefore IS must have put in some money as well. So he has at least a share, but a minority one.

OK that sounds pretty conclusive. I must have missed it. Thanks for your help.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Is this any help Bystander?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/helen-baileys-beloved-dog-killed-9600128

When the couple bought their home together in 2013, Helen put in the majority of the money, the court heard. Mr Trimmer said if she died Stewart stood to inherit assets worth £1.8million in addition to the Royston house and Broadstairs property.

Many thanks indeed. There is no doubt he did then.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Presumably this is all down to Helen's generous will rather than the sort of arrangements that would happen if she'd died intestate or if their relationship had come to an end.

Thank you. All sorted in my mind now.

 

[Alyce]

Is it because nothing would change once they were married, therefore saves her having to make another one, after they were married.

Yes, that's it. Have known of other, soon to be married, couples who do similar. Just saves extra work after marriage.