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

[mbmc]

What are we going to talk about all weekend? :waiting:

Well what I am thinking about this weekend is, what the hell is going to be IS's defence, denial, denial denial?

I would hate to be on the Jury, I am guilty of thinking him guilty from the start, I know this is wrong and this is why we have our judicial system. [emoji15]

Although I want him to take the stand I am dreading it, I can imagine his performance, ill health, no motive, poor me me me, it wasn't me guv.

As for the chuckle brothers, I don't imagine any revelations, if asked why he did not mention them from the outset will he perhaps say he was led to believe his sons would be in danger, hence his silence? ....did not seem to be too worried when he finally told his son, they had other things to talk about! What other reason could he have for not mentioning them? I am baffled.

So I await Monday with trepidation will be watching through my fingers! [emoji85]

Thank you all for the coverage.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cottonweaver]

I do hope we get to hear IS's nonsense on Monday afternoon.

Even though is an horrific case with so much needless suffering by Monday aft/Tuesday this thread will be super-charged. Anger, mockery, disgust, sarcasm - we won't be able to avoid any of it.
I will be happy to take the PXSS out of him, mercilessly.

Just imagining the look's on jurors' faces , scrutinising him on Mon/Tues.
Tara Cox said there were 30+ journos on day one, it'll be a high profile news story come Tuesday. . Guess press benches will be similarly packed when he does his "turn." (He's been practising in the mirror, if he has one in his cell?)

It's going to be a story lacking in any credibility - preposterous- despite an attempt to tick all the boxes.
He'll find it impossible to cover all the evidential points and he won't cope under cross. He will get tangled in the detail , plus his temperament and arrogance will be his undoing.

He's going to come across so badly.

I wonder has anyone tried to dissuade him, as a last-ditch attempt, over the weekend, or to have him come clean, change his plea, confess and spare the Baileys his B.S.

Even if Helen's shattered mum Eileen has tried to avoid coverage of other days I suppose she will feel compelled to hear what he has to say for himself, even if that's only through reading the newspaper coverage.

 

[Rayemonde]

Going on the idea that IS is going to blame 'Joe and Nick' for the murder- how is he going to explain the zopiclone in Helen's system given that she was googling 'why am i falling asleep' etc? Is he going to suggest Joe and Nick were somehow drugging her?

I literally cannot wait to hear his fairytales! x

Joe and Nick made him do it!! They gave him a special secret phone, remember, and were issuing instructions to him...

 

[Evendor]

So after IS taking the stand is that the end of the trail? or do the defence now go?

 

[looroll]

Joe and Nick made him do it!! They gave him a special secret phone, remember, and were issuing instructions to him...

Lol!
x

 

[Moll]

So after IS taking the stand is that the end of the trail? or do the defence now go?

IS taking the stand is the highlight of the defence case, if it happens.

 

[Alyce]

So after IS taking the stand is that the end of the trail? or do the defence now go?

Depends how many witnesses the Defence are going to put up. IS is clearly going to be the first to give evidence, but they may have others - friends ? character witnesses - medical etc....

At the outset we were told the trial would last 7 weeks, with Prosecution saying they needed 4.
So if all keeps to the timeline, then the Defence could be this week and next ( can't personally see them putting up two weeks of evidence, but who knows ) then final week would be closing arguments, Judge's summing up and out go the Jury.

 

[Tortoise]

Being very cynical here (who me?)

Helen made her will in favour of her brother and step-children in 2012. The same year IS says he asked Helen to marry him.

He said that was about a year after her husband died, which would have been Feb 2012, and he also said that was about 3 1/2 years ago, which would have been Nov 2012.

Just to add, he signed as witness to the 2012 will.

 

[Squamous]

Joe and Nick made him do it!! They gave him a special secret phone, remember, and were issuing instructions to him...

But at the same time, IS is completely innocent, so did they call him on the bat-phone and tell him to go out while they donned an Ian-disguise (both of them together like a pantomime horse) and drugged Helen without her or IS noticing? Obviously this would give IS no cause for concern or any need to warn his beloved partner, sons or to call the police.

 

[Cherwell]

The horrid thought I had last night is - could he be reading all this? He hasn't been found guilty yet, he's on remand. Are remand prisoners allowed to use the internet?

 

[snoopydog]

I'm not sure about everyone else here but to me there's parts of the prosecution that could have been emphasised more. Maybe we've just not heard enough with the reporting from the news... I feel like there should have been a computer expert on to tell us about what was found and what was deleted, that's a massive indicator of his guilt to me. You don't just go and lose phones and delete your computers unless you are hiding something. I also want to know about her searches they did find. What happened to whatever computer he uses in the house?? I doubt a 'computer expert (cough)' would ONLY use his phone for internet. So where's his office and his computer?

I think his biggest defence is going to be that he was too ill but from looking online it's clear to me that he could have felt better after a week. Everyone is different mind you so he'll be playing on that....

Maybe we should try and make a murder plan out of what we think he did, point out all the blunders and holes then see if there is any way he could get out of this... the police don't seem to have looked for this nick and joe or pursued that at all so that should have been covered somehow surely?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moll]

I'm not sure about everyone else here but to me there's parts of the prosecution that could have been emphasised more. Maybe we've just not heard enough with the reporting from the news... I feel like there should have been a computer expert on to tell us about what was found and what was deleted, that's a massive indicator of his guilt to me. You don't just go and lose phones and delete your computers unless you are hiding something. I also want to know about her searches they did find. What happened to whatever computer he uses in the house?? I doubt a 'computer expert (cough)' would ONLY use his phone for internet. So where's his office and his computer?

I think his biggest defence is going to be that he was too ill but from looking online it's clear to me that he could have felt better after a week. Everyone is different mind you so he'll be playing on that....

Maybe we should try and make a murder plan out of what we think he did, point out all the blunders and holes then see if there is any way he could get out of this... the police don't seem to have looked for this nick and joe or pursued that at all so that should have been covered somehow surely?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't know what the police have or have not done about 'Joe and Nick'. If IS provided no sensible information, why should they waste time on this? At least, beyond finding out what the prosecution have brought out, that no one you might have expected to hear about them and their evil doings, had done. It doesn't need covering in court unless there is something to cover - the prosecution want to establish the facts against IS, not let themselves be led off on a wild goose-chase, something IS imagines he is good at. I suppose when he gets on to this story we may hear the police have done more on it than we know about yet.

 

[snoopydog]

We don't know what the police have or have not done about 'Joe and Nick'. If IS provided no sensible information, why should they waste time on this? At least, beyond finding out what the prosecution have brought out, that no one you might have expected to hear about them and their evil doings, had done. It doesn't need covering in court unless there is something to cover - the prosecution want to establish the facts against IS, not let themselves be led off on a wild goose-chase, something IS imagines he is good at. I suppose when he gets on to this story we may hear the police have done more on it than we know about yet.

I was kind of thinking they might have established they don't exist or something.... not sure how these things work


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Squamous]

The horrid thought I had last night is - could he be reading all this? He hasn't been found guilty yet, he's on remand. Are remand prisoners allowed to use the internet?

In short, no:


http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/PIB extract - Unconvicted prisoners.pdf

 

[Moll]

The horrid thought I had last night is - could he be reading all this? He hasn't been found guilty yet, he's on remand. Are remand prisoners allowed to use the internet?

Hmm..I don't know.The govt website says:

'The internet and social media
Prisoners aren’t allowed to access social networking websites (such as Facebook or Twitter) while they’re in custody.

You can’t email prisoners directly, but some prisons use a service called Email a Prisoner. If you send a message this way, it’ll be printed out and delivered by prison staff.'
That's not absolutely clear, re other websites than the obvious 'social media' ones.

But I doubt it - and I also feel so what if he did?

|EDIT Just seen Squamous's post, so that's a clear no!

 

[Moll]

I was kind of thinking they might have established they don't exist or something.... not sure how these things work


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, that would be good - but all this will come out via his defence, I assume. Either their non-existence or just their total non-relevance.

 

[Cherwell]

Yes, let's not forget that the prosecution will be cross-examining him, and a lot of points can be established in that way.

 

[Alyce]

Just to add, he signed as witness to the 2012 will.

Which is interesting. If Helen had signed and had her Will witnessed at the solicitors, I would have expected staff to act as witnesses.

The fact that IS was a witness, makes me think it may have been done at home ( his or hers ) with perhaps a friend or neighbour as the other witness.

So possibly gave him an opportunity to have a sneaky look through the Will ( which he would not have done in a solicitors office ).

I realise he already knew by then that Helen was wealthy, but there's nothing quite like seeing just how wealthy and the exact figures.

 

[Tortoise]

I think his biggest defence is going to be that he was too ill but from looking online it's clear to me that he could have felt better after a week. Everyone is different mind you so he'll be playing on that....

I don't know if you mean within a week of his operation here. But just in case anyone was misled by what he apparently said to Christopher Priest about having had his operation the week before, his operation was in fact 3 weeks and 3 days before 11th April.

 

[snoopydog]

I don't know if you mean within a week of his operation here. But just in case anyone was misled by what he apparently said to Christopher Priest about having had his operation the week before, his operation was in fact 3 weeks and 3 days before 11th April.

I meant that according to medical info online after his operation he could have been feeling fine after a week. This means after 3 weeks he was possibly up to full strength imo. I think he'll play on this though and try and make out there was no way he was fit enough. I hope it will be established somehow that he could have been better sooner.... if that makes sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk