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

[Alyce]

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).

I'm guessing that this confrontation took place a few days earlier. Could even have been the reason Helen looked stressed on the Saturday ( nothing to do with driving, as AM thought or had been told ).

They couldnt have been having a disagreement on the Monday morning as Helen was on line, almost continuously from 8.16 am to 10.58 am .......plus she was looking at wedding venues and chatting to Tracey about the wedding.

So my guess is, they had had a confrontation, he had somehow talked his way out of it, Helen thought everything was back on track, but IS knew that he had to act fast.

 

[Alyce]

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.

I agree. That comment by the Defence was completely daft. An executor is there to execute the terms of the Will and to take into account the wishes of the testator - and it was clear Helen wanted IS to benefit.

I actually thought, initially, that they were getting muddled with the Will and the Life Insurance policy Trust which woud have had trustees and beneficiaries .....but no, they were talking about the Will.

Fortunately the Jury seem to have grasped it all ok and I dont think they will be swayed by the Defence's attempts to fog the issue.

 

[Tortoise]

Was IS trying to suggest that Helen was being unfaithful with Hurley? That's the undertone I picked up.

[FONT=&quot]“Ian said to me directly ‘I’m in a terrible state at the moment and the reason I drove to your office in Surrey was that I wanted to look at you straight in the eye. I’ve looked at Helen’s emails… and ask is Helen staying with you?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I answered that by saying Helen was not staying with me.”[/FONT]

 

[Lit Up]

Well it would be a stupid suggestion given he knew very well where she was! But probably some way to try and cover his tracks by behaving in a non suspicious way. Tony Hurley said that he had no suspicions of Ian, so Ian must have been quite manipulative.

Was IS trying to suggest that Helen was being unfaithful with Hurley? That's the undertone I picked up.

 

[tlcya]

This thread has gotten long. Thread #4 is open and ready for you. This one will close in ten minutes.

 

[Lit Up]

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

hah, yes. He asked Mr Hurley something along the lines of "so you have said that HB was an intelligent, clever woman. If she had chosen not to tell anybody about something, then you would not have known about it, is that correct?" to which he is obviously going to say "that's correct" hence trying to set up the scenario of HB having secrets and Hurley not knowing her as much as he thinks he does etc etc.