GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #4

[Cherwell]

Indeed. Best way to tell a lie, use as much truth as possible in the story.

What he forgot was ( as Tortoise said ) no one would have expected Helen to drive to Broadstairs.
Which left only taxi, train or a friend taking her. All able to be checked.

Oh, but I think she quite possibly would have driven to Broadstairs - now that she had the Jeep. She would feel much safer on the main roads and motorways than in that flimsy little Fiat. And if she was going to stay for at least a few days, and she had Boris with her, driving would have been much more convenient than going by train.

But IS was stuck with the Jeep inconveniently still at Royston. Not so easy to get rid of a big car!

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder when Helen first decided to sell Gateshead.
Was it January ( begininng of drugs ? ) but then delayed due to ISs health concerns and eventual operation.

I don't think we've been told that Alyce.

Sorry, I realise now you were wondering not asking

 

[neteditor]

<RSBM>



This is incorrect.

UK Bar Standards Board

<snip>
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.u...andards-for-the-conduct-of-professional-work/

Aaah I see that is from 6 Jan 2014, my knowledge would appear to be somewhat outdated. Thank you for the heads up.

 

[Lit Up]

If any of you guys want to hear what one of the prosecution counsel sounds like, Stuart Trimmer QC is a bit of a bible basher in his spare time, and you can hear him talk about the meaning of Christmas here, lol

http://www.woodsidegreencc.org.uk/nwlkWGCCWS/index.php/audio-talks/messages/teacher/stuart-trimmer

 

[Alyce]

Have just pulled this up from the evidence of the solicitor involved in the sale of Gateshead.

Sounds as though first meeting was April 5 ( day IS got the all clear ).

Still doesnt really answer my Q though, as there would presumably have been some prior discussion between Helen and IS, talking over her plans to sell. Just dont know when :maddening:




Timothy Penn, a solicitor at Penn Sassoly solicitors in Royston, will now be giving evidence.

He said: “Helen was introduced to me because she needed a solicitor for the sale of a flat.

“On April 5 she came into my office for an appointment. She said to me that I would need her partner’s ID at some point.

“She said the flat had been an investment property, it was surplus to her requirements she was selling it to realise the capital. It was a very routine conveyancing transaction as far as we were concerned.

“The flat was in Gateshead, the asking price was £185,000. The purpose of the meeting was an opportunity to meet the client which we always wish to do, and to get some basic instructions from her in regard to the property and the circumstances of the sale.

“That was the first and only time I met Helen Bailey. My records showed that Helen was due to come into the office to see me on April 11, 2016, but my office was called and we heard that she would not be coming in because she was unwell.

A few days later Stewart came in with some documents Helen was due to be bringing in but wasn’t able to.

“He came back and collected the surplus documents about a week later. We copied his ID.

“He gave the air of someone who was in a little bit of a hurry, but apart from that there was nothing untoward really.”

 

[neteditor]

It's not actually moot - it's key prosecution evidence which can be used by the Prosecution within the limits of the hearsay rule.

A sworn police statement can be admitted. That is the advantage of giving one.

But developing comments by others above, Nick and Joe is currently hurting the defence if IS does not testify and convince the jury that they at least exist.

Mustn't forget the arrest rights:

&#8220;You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.&#8221;

World of pain right there for IS.

 

[Alyce]

and the next bit of evidence, where Timothy Penn outlines ISs agitation !
I note the line about IS wanting to take the papers back - was he planning to try his luck elsewhere ...but events overtook him

Mr Penn is now being cross-examined by the defence.

He said he was told by Helen that an offer had been made for the property in Gateshead.

He reiterated that Stewart came in to the solicitor&#8217;s office on April 11, 2016, and it was possible that Stewart came into his office to give him the box of files.

&#8220;I don&#8217;t recall him coming back in later the same day with more paperwork, but this could have happened.

&#8220;I should mention to the court that Stewart came back to the office on another occasion in July much later, again pressing me as to whether or not this transaction could proceed, and again telling me about the power of attorney. He was talking about registering the power so he was able to act under it, but my advice was that I would not act without knowing more about Ms Bailey&#8217;s circumstances.

&#8220;On this occasion he was very anxious. He was not at all pleased to hear the news I was not able to proceed with the transaction, it did not go down well.

&#8220;He was shrugging his shoulders. He didn&#8217;t hang around and left fairly quickly.

&#8220;He wanted to take the papers back with him, but I said I couldn&#8217;t release them without Ms Bailey&#8217;s authority, and again this wasn&#8217;t well received.

&#8220;Although he was keen to get his hands on these papers there wasn&#8217;t really anything that would&#8217;ve helped.&#8221;

 

[Moll]

This has been raised by someone else ages ago, but I wonder why she told the solicitor he would be needing her partner's ID? Solicitors require ID from people who are party to a transaction, I know - indeed as a director of the freehold company of my block of flats I have to take ID along whenever we start a new transaction, even though the solicitors have known me for over a decade - but as she owned the flat, IS wouldn't have been involved, legally - would he?

 

[cottonweaver]

I think it was always his plan.

The fast amendment of the standing order shows me that.

The drugging and cold dispatch shows he had no emotional connection with Helen, from a time at least that they were making wedding plans and visiting venues. Even if Helen was planning on changing her will in the few days before her death, it doesn't explain 3 months of drugging.

I don't believe he thought he would use Helen's impaired state of mind to not kill her but only invoke the power of attorney. If Helen had to be assessed by a doctor they would run tests and all would be revealed. Heck even a stay at her mums for a brief recovery period would mean she would become drug-free and it would become clear this wasn't a permanent mental health issue.

So I do believe he waited until the will and poa were in place, didn't act immediately because that would stand out, then thought the time was perfect (she had signed the papers to sell the only property she had not bequeathed to him) to kill her, thinking the poa would permit him to spend her money, and get his hands on her estate when she was missing presumed dead, if he hadn't sold everything already by that stage with his false perception of a poa.

Seriously, I think this was long in the planning and other equally serious questions arise about his past. I think he will have been or is being investigated already, I don't think police will be waiting for the outcome of this trial.

Agreed to all especially BIB and I guess a few parties may have been aware of that for a while now.

Fingers crossed that he really is up on the stand on Monday. Bring on the cross with but with gloves off.

It'll also be interesting to see how he tries to match up testimony on the smaller details ( beyond the ridiculous Nick & Joe) in order to tie it in with other testimony to date.

 

[cottonweaver]

Have just pulled this up from the evidence of the solicitor involved in the sale of Gateshead.

Sounds as though first meeting was April 5 ( day IS got the all clear ).

Still doesnt really answer my Q though, as there would presumably have been some prior discussion between Helen and IS, talking over her plans to sell. Just dont know when :maddening:

is that a reliable April 5th for the all - clear then?

 

[Legally Bland]

This has been raised by someone else ages ago, but I wonder why she told the solicitor he would be needing her partner's ID? Solicitors require ID from people who are party to a transaction, I know - indeed as a director of the freehold company of my block of flats I have to take ID along whenever we start a new transaction, even though the solicitors have known me for over a decade - but as she owned the flat, IS wouldn't have been involved, legally - would he?

I think someone speculated that if the money was to be paid into the joint account, then they may need his ID for money laundering checks.

 

[Squamous]

is that a reliable April 5th for the all - clear then?

I hadn't realised how close the dates were. That's quite a clear motive given that IS thought the sale could proceed in Helen's absence.

 

[neteditor]

I think someone speculated that if the money was to be paid into the joint account, then they may need his ID for money laundering checks.

I missed that bit of discussion earlier but actually there is quite a nice little clue. The proceeds of that sale were to go into the joint account! More motive!

 

[Moll]

I missed that bit of discussion earlier but actually there is quite a nice little clue. The proceeds of that sale were to go into the joint account! More motive!

Yes!
I was not clear about why the solicitors did then take his ID, according to Mr Penn's statement, when IS came to the office a few days after Helen's 'disappearance'. But I assume now that it didn't imply anything about POA or him taking over the transaction, which the solicitors were very clear about NOT allowing, but was just done while he was there, on the assumption that things would be cleared up one way or another and he would have access to the joint account. Anyway taking his ID would have kept him quiet on that issue at least, without committing them to anything.

 

[Alyce]

If any of you guys want to hear what one of the prosecution counsel sounds like, Stuart Trimmer QC is a bit of a bible basher in his spare time, and you can hear him talk about the meaning of Christmas here, lol

http://www.woodsidegreencc.org.uk/nwlkWGCCWS/index.php/audio-talks/messages/teacher/stuart-trimmer

Great link LitUp, many thanks.

I just listened to his talk on The Attractions of Wealth - most interesting !

 

[Alyce]

is that a reliable April 5th for the all - clear then?

It was in the evidence ( I will find it ) of Helen's neighbour/friend. She gave that as the date


found it !


The court also heard that on April 5 &#8211; six days before her alleged murder, Ms Bailey told her friend Margaret Holson that &#8220;Ian&#8217;s tumour was benign&#8221; and that her life could begin.

 

[cottonweaver]

anyone read a blog comment where HB says that Boris has been ill?

would probably have been somewhere between Jan- March?

 

[Alyce]

Just while looking for the neighbour evidence ( re April 5 ) I have been re reading some of ISs evidence

This bit is interesting. He says he will drive any of the cars at the house - no one else will.

There was a snippet of evidence from the week end April 9 and 10, where IS said that he and Jamie went out in the Jeep to get dog food ? So presumably IS was up to driving then, even though JS said he was surprised that IS drove over to bowls on the Monday.
And yes, I know the dog food drive would be a few minutes up the road as opposed to 25 mins to Cambridge, but even so.

I note also he gets the line in about no one but Helen would access her FB account ( even though he has already done so ! )

and ......he talks of Helen only driving the bmw near the coast and in a car park. If she was that uncomfortable about driving the beemer, then I cant see her taking a Jeep on the motorway down to Broadstairs.


Who has access to Helen's vehicles?'

He is now asked about Facebook accounts.

He said Helen had her own Facebook account and no-one else would access that.

He is asked about vehicles. He says cars in the garage include Helen&#8217;s Fiat, Helen&#8217;s Jeep, and two of his son&#8217;s cars.

He is asked if they use each other&#8217;s vehicles.

&#8220;I will drive any of them, but no-one else would.

&#8220;Helen&#8217;s insured to drive the BMW but has only done it about twice, once near the coast and once in a car park.&#8221;

 

[Cherwell]

Just as an aside, Facebook (which I only use for local community pages and that sort of thing) has just given me a "suggested page" for a firm of solicitors in Royston!
How creepy is that !

All I've done re Royston is look up the journey from there to Broadstairs on Google maps. I hate Facebook.

 

[Alyce]

Ah, interesting bit re the alarm here



The events of April 11...

Stewart is then explaining how he went to the rubbish tip, the doctor&#8217;s surgery and the solicitors on April 11, but tells officers that he can&#8217;t remember in which order he did so.

Stewart admits that himself and Helen didn&#8217;t set the house alarm when the dog, Boris, was at home.

He said: &#8220;He absolutely hates the noise, it must be a high pitched noise. He freaks out. It&#8217;s almost like he&#8217;s terrified.&#8221;