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

[Tortoise]

It might have been remarked before, but there do seem to be unfortunate similarities between IS and Malcolm Webster, another wicked psychopath who bumped off his wives for money. MW continues to protest his innocence to this day.

Gosh, I'm just reading about him now on wiki. He also claimed to have various illnesses including cancer and said his first wife had epilepsy, drugged them and cashed in on the life policies.

It makes me wonder whether IS could be faking his own illnesses too. It would fit with all the deception.

 

[Tortoise]

I think the defence were trying to mislead the jury as well into thinking that he'd get less unless they were married. They omitted the insurance policy when saying this... this should have been clarified strongly by the prosecution


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. But I'd still convict even without knowing his motive.

 

[Florrie]

Agree. But I'd still convict even without knowing his motive.

Absolutely, who else could have put Helen's body and Boris in the cesspit? Why would they have done so if both had not been murdered?
A motive is nice but when you have the circumstances here then it's almost immaterial. Nobody else but IS could have done this...and he has been caught out in lie after lie before even taking the stand.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DollyDiamond]

I assume that the Stewart sons will benefit from Ian's meagre savings and 470k odd equity in the Royston house, when he dies. If he feels guilty he might just gift all of that to his sons after the trial, given he can't spend anything himself; although maybe he's deluded and thinks he'll get out on appeal.

I wonder what will happen to the Royston house after HB's estate passes probate. The Stewart sons are presumably still living in the property. The house will still be partly owned by Ian Stewart, at least to the value of whatever money he stuck into it (£470,000?). John Bailey and the two adult Sinfield stepchildren are the beneficiaries from the first will HB made and I presume that given the laws on forefeiture, that her estate will be divided between the three of them, but that will be another complicated decision for a court to make.

I may be quite wrong but I can't see IS worrying too much about his sons' financial security while he is serving his long prison sentence. For one thing I don't believe he is capable of truly caring about the best interests of anyone but himself and for another I bet he'll be full of self pity and hoping against hope he'll be released at some point to enjoy his money - therefore he won't relinquish it! Everything's relative but I wouldn't say his saving are meagre, its a six figure sum on top of the value of his share in the house. He was well off in his own right, which makes his lust for Helen's money all the more appalling!

 

[Lit Up]

Was it as confusing in person as it is via reporting?!

yes. hence why I cannot be of much use in explaining anything, it mostly went over my head and wasn't as exciting a day as Friday. All money talk, quite an incompetent sounding solicitor and then Mr Hurley. Interesting to put a face to the name though as Helen even thanked him personally in the Bikinis book.

Highlights of today was IS crying in the dock. Note that he did not "shake" that is a journalistic embellishment. He was just getting emotional and was handed a box of tissues, precisely at the point that Tony Hurley said: “She basically said to me: ‘If anything, god forbid happens to me, the one thing I want to make sure is that Ian and the boys have the security of this house.’ “Helen was clear she wished to marry Ian Stewart, but not completely about the timetable.” and then also at the point where Hurley said he had to apologise to Ian for not believing him that HB wanted to marry him.

One funny bit was when Tony Hurley was asked when his last correspondence with HB was. He said that he received an email from her saying something like, she had just woken up in the middle of the night and remembered that as part of a longer list of things she had to sort out, she had to discuss a few unresolved matters with him. The defence then said "so she was thinking about you in the middle of the night!" as if to try and cast some vague suspicion on Tony Hurley. It was a cheesy and desperate line by the defence. He also said that Mr Hurley would not have known things that HB didn't want him to know(?) and that she was an intelligent woman who was able to keep secrets from him. This then is trying to portray HB as a woman with secrets and shadows in her life (people like Joe and Nick!). But Simon Russell-Flint QC for the defence must know what his chances of success are by now, and so maybe he's just throwing anything out there to pick up the cheque. He's quite a suave silk though.

Family in attendance that I could recognise was John Bailey, Fraser Dyer, and Jamie Stewart. As has previously been discussed, Jamie Stewart is on positive terms with the Baileys. At no point have I seen Jamie Stewart try and communicate with his father (it would be quite easy to do, IS is right there next to the door).

 

[Tortoise]

yes. hence why I cannot be of much use in explaining anything, it mostly went over my head and wasn't as exciting a day as Friday. All money talk, quite an incompetent sounding solicitor and then Mr Hurley. Interesting to put a face to the name though as Helen even thanked him personally in the Bikinis book.

Highlights of today was IS crying in the dock. Note that he did not "shake" that is a journalistic embellishment. He was just getting emotional and was handed a box of tissues, precisely at the point that Tony Hurley said: “She basically said to me: ‘If anything, god forbid happens to me, the one thing I want to make sure is that Ian and the boys have the security of this house.’ “Helen was clear she wished to marry Ian Stewart, but not completely about the timetable.” and then also at the point where Hurley said he had to apologise to Ian for not believing him that HB wanted to marry him.

One funny bit was when Tony Hurley was asked when his last correspondence with HB was. He said that he received an email from her saying something like, she had just woken up in the middle of the night and remembered that as part of a longer list of things she had to sort out, she had to discuss a few unresolved matters with him. The defence then said "so she was thinking about you in the middle of the night!" as if to try and cast some vague suspicion on Tony Hurley. It was a cheesy and desperate line by the defence. He also said that Mr Hurley would not have known things that HB didn't want him to know(?) and that she was an intelligent woman who was able to keep secrets from him. This then is trying to portray HB as a woman with secrets and shadows in her life (people like Joe and Nick!). But Simon Russell-Flint QC for the defence must know what his chances of success are by now, and so maybe he's just throwing anything out there to pick up the cheque. He's quite a suave silk though.

Family in attendance that I could recognise was John Bailey, Fraser Dyer, and Jamie Stewart. As has previously been discussed, Jamie Stewart is on positive terms with the Baileys. At no point have I seen Jamie Stewart try and communicate with his father (it would be quite easy to do, IS is right there next to the door).

I expect Tony Hurley is quite pleased he is not called Nick Hurley or Joe Hurley!

Did IS make loud sobbing noises?

 

[Moll]

Gosh, I'm just reading about him now on wiki. He also claimed to have various illnesses including cancer and said his first wife had epilepsy, drugged them and cashed in on the life policies.

It makes me wonder whether IS could be faking his own illnesses too. It would fit with all the deception.

Me too, I was fascinated by the account. The way he managed to give people an entirely misleading view of his real intentions...

 

[faybradshaw]

Crumbs, Jamie's non communication with his father says a lot.

 

[DollyDiamond]

yes. hence why I cannot be of much use in explaining anything, it mostly went over my head and wasn't as exciting a day as Friday. All money talk, quite an incompetent sounding solicitor and then Mr Hurley. Interesting to put a face to the name though as Helen even thanked him personally in the Bikinis book.

Highlights of today was IS crying in the dock. Note that he did not "shake" that is a journalistic embellishment. He was just getting emotional and was handed a box of tissues, precisely at the point that Tony Hurley said: “She basically said to me: ‘If anything, god forbid happens to me, the one thing I want to make sure is that Ian and the boys have the security of this house.’ “Helen was clear she wished to marry Ian Stewart, but not completely about the timetable.” and then also at the point where Hurley said he had to apologise to Ian for not believing him that HB wanted to marry him.

One funny bit was when Tony Hurley was asked when his last correspondence with HB was. He said that he received an email from her saying something like, she had just woken up in the middle of the night and remembered that as part of a longer list of things she had to sort out, she had to discuss a few unresolved matters with him. The defence then said "so she was thinking about you in the middle of the night!" as if to try and cast some vague suspicion on Tony Hurley. It was a cheesy and desperate line by the defence. He also said that Mr Hurley would not have known things that HB didn't want him to know(?) and that she was an intelligent woman who was able to keep secrets from him. This then is trying to portray HB as a woman with secrets and shadows in her life (people like Joe and Nick!). But Simon Russell-Flint QC for the defence must know what his chances of success are by now, and so maybe he's just throwing anything out there to pick up the cheque. He's quite a suave silk though.

Family in attendance that I could recognise was John Bailey, Fraser Dyer, and Jamie Stewart. As has previously been discussed, Jamie Stewart is on positive terms with the Baileys. At no point have I seen Jamie Stewart try and communicate with his father (it would be quite easy to do, IS is right there next to the door).

There's no substitute for a first hand account like yours, many thanks. Was wondering why the defence guy Simon Russell-Flint QC rang a bell - he represented the nutcase who murdered Jo Cox MP. He certainly doesn't swerve a challenge!

 

[DollyDiamond]

I expect Tony Hurley is quite pleased he is not called Nick Hurley or Joe Hurley!

Thanks for the laugh Tortoise!

 

[Cherwell]

Wow, there's a lot that we're not getting from the reporters. Thanks for all this.

Hurley said he had to apologise to Ian for not believing him that HB wanted to marry him.

Interesting! I wonder what the context is here.

One funny bit was when Tony Hurley was asked when his last correspondence with HB was. He said that he received an email from her saying something like, she had just woken up in the middle of the night and remembered that as part of a longer list of things she had to sort out, she had to discuss a few unresolved matters with him. The defence then said "so she was thinking about you in the middle of the night!" as if to try and cast some vague suspicion on Tony Hurley. It was a cheesy and desperate line by the defence. He also said that Mr Hurley would not have known things that HB didn't want him to know(?) and that she was an intelligent woman who was able to keep secrets from him. This then is trying to portray HB as a woman with secrets and shadows in her life (people like Joe and Nick!). But Simon Russell-Flint QC for the defence must know what his chances of success are by now, and so maybe he's just throwing anything out there to pick up the cheque. He's quite a suave silk though.

I read somewhere that "juries like" this defence barrister, but I really don't think he'll engage their sympathies with these kind of insinuations.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Wow, there's a lot that we're not getting from the reporters. Thanks for all this.



Interesting! I wonder what the context is here.



I read somewhere that "juries like" this defence barrister, but I really don't think he'll engage their sympathies with these kind of insinuations.

I agree - I think he comment about Helen 'thinking about' Tony Hurley in the night was facetious and in poor taste - she is the blameless victim in all of this!

 

[Cherwell]

I agree - I think he comment about Helen 'thinking about' Tony Hurley in the night was facetious and in poor taste - she is the blameless victim in all of this!

Yes, it's a horrible thing to say. If I was on the jury, he'd have totally lost my respect with that.

 

[Moll]

Yes, it's a horrible thing to say. If I was on the jury, he'd have totally lost my respect with that.

Yes - after Dolly's interesting point about his having represented the murderer of Jo Cox I looked him up and see that people always comment on his wonderful way with juries, Unless it sounded very different from the way it looks (and Lit up didn't think so) he seems to have been off-key here.
Re hard cases, in the Jo Cox murder he did not have to defend a man pleading Not Guilty, of course,

 

[DollyDiamond]

After today's disclosure of Helen's worth, its clear-cut to me that Helen discovered something sinister was going on, that morning or previous night and confronted IS and told him it was over. He acted accordingly...

faybradshaw - Yes, after today's evidence I'm coming to the same conclusion. Something doesn't add up about the day he chose to do the awful deed, and his muddled cover up. There's a piece of the jigsaw missing and on balance it's probably some kind of confrontation between him and Helen which made him decide to act there and then. He had been planning it and thinking about if for so long, actually doing it probably wasn;t too much of a leap for him (especially if he has ever got away with something like this in the past).

 

[DollyDiamond]

Yes - after Dolly's interesting point about his having represented the murderer of Jo Cox I looked him up and see that people always comment on his wonderful way with juries, Unless it sounded very different from the way it looks (and Lit up didn't think so) he seems to have been off-key here.
Re hard cases, in the Jo Cox murder he did not have to defend a man pleading Not Guilty, of course,

That's true. Defence lawyers often get a lot of stick from the public for defending the indefensible but they do of course do a very important job in a democracy. And I don't envy them some of the evil individuals they have to deal closely with - if it was me having to listen to murderers' shameless lies day in day out, I would be taking a long, hot shower the minute I got home!

 

[Alyce]

I think the defence were trying to mislead the jury as well into thinking that he'd get less unless they were married. They omitted the insurance policy when saying this... this should have been clarified strongly by the prosecution


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think they absolutely were doing their best to mislead.... it was not clear, from the morning evidence, as to whether or not IS would * benefit* from the Life Insurance Policy that Helen had set up to cover the IHT.
It was only after lunch that the Judge confirmed that he would do so and this was reconfirmed by Tony Hurley.

It is a pity that some msm are also still reporting it incorrectly.

 

[Alyce]

I assume that the Stewart sons will benefit from Ian's meagre savings and 470k odd equity in the Royston house, when he dies. If he feels guilty he might just gift all of that to his sons after the trial, given he can't spend anything himself; although maybe he's deluded and thinks he'll get out on appeal.

I wonder what will happen to the Royston house after HB's estate passes probate. The Stewart sons are presumably still living in the property. The house will still be partly owned by Ian Stewart, at least to the value of whatever money he stuck into it (£470,000?). John Bailey and the two adult Sinfield stepchildren are the beneficiaries from the first will HB made and I presume that given the laws on forefeiture, that her estate will be divided between the three of them, but that will be another complicated decision for a court to make.

Sadly yes. Which means that IS has still profited or been able - indirectly - to hand on profit from his crime. He would never have been able to afford a property to the value of £1.1 million ( £1.8 now at current value ) so he has gained far more than if he only had his own property ( Bassingbourn ) to bequeath.

JB and the two stepchildren will need to be in the current Will in order to benefit. Hopefully they are.
The estate will be split between the remaining beneficiaries once IS is taken out.

Just rethinking about this - and not sure whether I am right or not.
But it may be possible that ISs pay out from the sale of Hartwell Lodge will only amount to the exact figure that he put into the purchase - the £470k - and that he will not be allowed to gain from his crime by being paid the profit that will have been accrued over the past 3.5 years. That would be an excellent resolution.

 

[Alyce]

yes. hence why I cannot be of much use in explaining anything, it mostly went over my head and wasn't as exciting a day as Friday. All money talk, quite an incompetent sounding solicitor and then Mr Hurley. Interesting to put a face to the name though as Helen even thanked him personally in the Bikinis book.

Highlights of today was IS crying in the dock. Note that he did not "shake" that is a journalistic embellishment. He was just getting emotional and was handed a box of tissues, precisely at the point that Tony Hurley said: “She basically said to me: ‘If anything, god forbid happens to me, the one thing I want to make sure is that Ian and the boys have the security of this house.’ “Helen was clear she wished to marry Ian Stewart, but not completely about the timetable.” and then also at the point where Hurley said he had to apologise to Ian for not believing him that HB wanted to marry him.

One funny bit was when Tony Hurley was asked when his last correspondence with HB was. He said that he received an email from her saying something like, she had just woken up in the middle of the night and remembered that as part of a longer list of things she had to sort out, she had to discuss a few unresolved matters with him. The defence then said "so she was thinking about you in the middle of the night!" as if to try and cast some vague suspicion on Tony Hurley. It was a cheesy and desperate line by the defence. He also said that Mr Hurley would not have known things that HB didn't want him to know(?) and that she was an intelligent woman who was able to keep secrets from him. This then is trying to portray HB as a woman with secrets and shadows in her life (people like Joe and Nick!). But Simon Russell-Flint QC for the defence must know what his chances of success are by now, and so maybe he's just throwing anything out there to pick up the cheque. He's quite a suave silk though.

Family in attendance that I could recognise was John Bailey, Fraser Dyer, and Jamie Stewart. As has previously been discussed, Jamie Stewart is on positive terms with the Baileys. At no point have I seen Jamie Stewart try and communicate with his father (it would be quite easy to do, IS is right there next to the door).

good grief !! the Defence do sound desperate...talk about stating the obvious

 

[Squamous]

I thought the will was basically that the estate would go into trust and the executor would make the decisions as the interim measure hence why Tony Hurley was surprised he was the sole executor. That's why the defence said that IS could have not profited a penny if the executor chose not to give any to him. Which is daft, because Helen had left clear instructions about giving tons of it to IS.