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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
He'll be lying in bed tonight thinking how he can get out of tomorrow.

There are dramas to come, I feel.

But he couldn't lie straight in bed if his life depended on it. He made that bed. Let him lie in it.

After yesterday's proceedings, I can't see any reason for him to get in the box now ... at all. What can he possibly say to change anyone's mind. Nothing.
 
Re the Barclay's transaction and specifically why the tech evidence is so incriminating.

Of course the Barclays server logs the connection from the remote machine (IS Laptop) including no doubt some identifying info.

But more than that, the Barclays server and the remote machine establish a secure encrypted session.

This is achieved by the Barclays server passing encryption keys to the remote machine. These are used to encrypt the session and only the Barclays server and the remote machine have the keys - so only they can decrypt the data. This is how the session is secured from 3rd parties.

So when the session ends, what is left on IS computer is the security data which was passed to it, along with local records (browsing etc).

So IS has deleted history etc but reading between the lines it seems the data/security files passed by Barclays have only been partially deleted.

This is because they were cached, and then the computer has started using that space for new files, but had not 100% overwritten the Barclays data

By comparison of the files, (remote fragment and local), the techies were able to get a match.

This proves IS machine made the Barclays transaction attempt.

Taken alone, it may not seem that significant, but as a question of circumstantial evidence it is obviously huge.

Well done prosecution!
 
Just caught up with the thread this morning, had a few laughs at the "IS testimony" stuff. Yes I hope Helen would have approved of all our discussions here ...it sounds from her blog that she appreciated humour so thinking she would have laughed at the "testimony" stuff.

What defence can there possibly be?

Only "it wasn't me guv, honest. No idea their bodies were there, Joe and Nick were so scary I couldn't tell anyone (until I hit on it as an idea when my youngest son visited). They're the guilty party honest. They wiped my internet history for the whole week to frame me. I am not violent....ask anyone who knows me. I loved Helen and that dog ...we were all going to live happily ever after...until Joe and Nick showed up. Her late husband knew some shady people". And "blah blah blah...my Myasthenia is playing up ...can I go now"

Agree with whichever of Helen's relatives said that he doesn't feel emotions like other people do.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The witnesses today have all provided a patchwork of clues pointing strongly to IS' guilt. For me it has also answered a lingering question about why he was so keen to leave the scene of the crime/cess pit unguarded, and hop on a plane to Spain - he had a crucial job to do dumping incriminating phones and perhaps other evidence, in Palma (a shame it doesn't seem he was shadowed by plain clothes police over there, it could have been fruitful).

But I have to be honest and say I am disappointed we didn't get a big fat smoking gun today - ideally a computer mention of cess pits. That would have been 100% damning. Yes he wiped computer history, looked at stuff online about power of attorney, wasn't too interested in engagement rings and talked about Helen and Boris in the past tense. But for me, none of it was a big AH HA! moment. Sorry to be negative - at the end of the day it is crystal clear he's guilty, just wish something really strong and unequivocal had been revealed against him today.

As for the family photo of him from (ten?) years ago. He has definitely improved with age, the grey hair and beard have softened him. In this photo I think you see more of the real man - a big, fat self centred, entitled baby, posing front and centre before his pretty, sweet looking wife and healthy sons. A man who has got what he wanted without too much effort throughout his life (he receives £24,000 pa in his mid-fifties without doing a day's work!) An only child, he never had to compromise with siblings, didn't date too much at school (according to a former fellow pupil), was lucky enough to meet an attractive, eligible woman and gain the status and respectability of marriage and children. He has a huge and quite unrealistic sense of entitlement - so extreme, he will kill someone who stands between him and the lifestyle he craves.

When he is sentenced to life in prison I hope society will take advantage of his incarceration to study him like an animal in a zoo. Psychiatrists should study dangerous men like IS If we are to pay for his bed and board for the next however many decades, let's get our money's worth. Let's find out how the IS's of this world are created. Maybe lessons can be learned? In my view it's a mistake to just shrug our shoulders when we hear of another ruthless killer like him, as if we accept its inevitable, chuck them in jail and forget about them. That's a wasted opportunity in my view. Let's make them earn their bed and board.

The big AHA! moment was the police finding Helen and Boris the Dog in the cess pit.

It operates as a plot spoiler - I think that is why it feels that way.

I always maintained this about the Pistorius case.

Because the police found the gun, the body and the killer, the case was simply too obvious.

Everyone then starts second guessing what is plain as day!
 
The alternate explanation of seeing Helen & Boris in the lane was for me the most devastating evidence to emerge.

The prosecution summing up will no doubt focus on the shifting versions of IS
 
I've not heard of the term "paper file" before. It sounds like he's not giving oral evidence but his counsel will hand up a statement. My prediction today was that he wouldn't get in the box. I can't see why he wouldn't be present in court though.

It's perfectly legit if someone chooses not to testify, and an adverse inference shouldn't be made if they elect not to do so BUT I'd image the jurors would do just that ... assume he's too gutless to face the music.

Remember thanks to UK Law Reform an adverse inference can be made by the Judge where the accused does not testify if the relevant test is met.

In this case I believe it would be met by the IS bringing Nick and Joe into the mix late in the day, and then refusing to testify.

The Judge could direct the jury to make an adverse inference as to this exculpatory story based on IS failure to testify to their existence.
 
The "paper file" would make sense. He wants to present his defence but doesn't want to take the stand in order to do so.

Can he still be cross examined based upon the paper statement?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Remember thanks to UK Law Reform an adverse inference can be made by the Judge where the accused does not testify if the relevant test is met.

In this case I believe it would be met by the IS bringing Nick and Joe into the mix late in the day, and then refusing to testify.

The Judge could direct the jury to make an adverse inference as to this exculpatory story based on IS failure to testify to their existence.

Hi MrJitty. Thank you for explaining this. I deleted the post you're replying to a minute or two ago as I was just reading on the previous page that he is testifying today. The circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming IMO.
 
The image of Nick and Joe being asked to remove their shoes has been a brilliant start to the day.
 
The image of Nick and Joe being asked to remove their shoes has been a brilliant start to the day.

Oh that's just killed me this morning haha. "Before you punch me in the gut could you take your shoes off?"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Morning all-just wanted to say a big thank you to you all, been catching up on last nights posts and have to say I laughed out loud at some. I really hope IS is exposed for what he is today, but have a horrible feeling he is going to further sully Helen's memory , and that of JS too :(
x
 
I think they need to clarify the bank transactions, unless it's just that we're not getting the full story in the reporting.

Today they mentioned a Barclays transaction that had been wiped, but they found the corresponding transaction in Barclays' records. They didn't tell us anything else, like which account, how much and what date. Unless it doesn't relate to the charges, maybe it was to do with his own banking, and this evidence was purely to show he did use the computer during the period it shows no activity, so he can't say the gap is because he never did anything on the laptop that week.

I think he's been charged with fraud or theft, so it's not very clear yet, to me. In fact IIRC, I don't think we have a clear record of exactly what he has been charged with, apart from the murder and cover up charges.

The full charges as read to the court and the defendant at the beginning of the trial:

[FONT=&amp]Mr Stewart denies one count of murder, one count of fraud, one of preventing a lawful burial and two counts of perverting the course of justice and the trial continues.

[/FONT]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...trial-fiance-drugged-author-worth-4m-dumping/

The fraud has to be the changing of the standing order, I think? IIRC we don't have clarity in evidence so far of the two counts of perverting the course of justice. What are your thoughts? The disposal of the duvet and the wiping of the router?
 
Hello everyone. Does the trial continue tommrow? Id like to head down if so. I checked on courtserve and it says:

The Crown Court
at St Albans
Daily List for Tuesday 7 February 2017 at BRICKET ROAD ST ALBANS
Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRIGHT QC
For Mention
U20170046 PRODUCTION ORDER (DM)
Link to Hatfield Police Station
Trial (Part Heard)
T20167121 STEWART Ian
41E12190616
PAPER FILE


What does link to Hatfield mean? A video link?

Hi Matthew, sorry, I just posted the whole Court Serve info as a block, to show that there's a Production Order, just prior to ISs Trial... which can sometimes mean the Trial doesnt start bang on 10am as Judge has to deal with the other matter first
 
OMG - Could IS be giving evidence by video link from a police station? That would be just like the despicable coward!


No, that Production Order is something the Judge will deal with before ISs Trial begins this morning...
Nothing to do with IS, just the way Court Serve is laid out, can be a bit confusing ( well I suppose the legal guys understand it, but for us folk it can be a bit hard to read sometimes )
 
Hello everyone. Does the trial continue tommrow? Id like to head down if so. I checked on courtserve and it says:

The Crown Court
at St Albans
Daily List for Tuesday 7 February 2017 at BRICKET ROAD ST ALBANS
Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRIGHT QC
For Mention
U20170046 PRODUCTION ORDER (DM)
Link to Hatfield Police Station
Trial (Part Heard)
T20167121 STEWART Ian
41E12190616
PAPER FILE


What does link to Hatfield mean? A video link?

Excuse me if someone has answered already I am not fully caught up with overnight posts.

The link to Hatfield PS is in relation to the Case Number U20170046 Production Order hearing. This is NOT the HB murder trial (Case Number T20167121).

It will be a brief hearing before the judge regarding a completely different matter. A production order is a court order to produce evidence - the police apply to the judge for an order to compel another party to provide evidence (ie call records from a phone company etc).

The case numbers always start with the year in which the charge was laid (I think). I don't know what the U stands for but I assume the T (in the HB case number) stands for Trial.

The courts very often deal with short hearings first thing in the morning before adjourned long running cases are continued.

You can go to court for the IS trial but probably can't sit in on the production order hearing and will be allowed into court when that is dealt with.
 
The "paper file" would make sense. He wants to present his defence but doesn't want to take the stand in order to do so.

Can he still be cross examined based upon the paper statement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

AFAIK, "paper file" has been stated on the court listing every day. I think it just literally means they are working from a file of paper! Back in my day, they were always paper files as digital life had not yet taken over. They used to call it a "bundle" (don't know whether they still do behind closed doors). All the paperwork (statements, photos, house plans, etc etc,) are collated in ring binders - these are copied and provided to the prosecution and defence teams, the judge has one, the main court clerk will have one and the jurors will probably have one each too (though theirs may contain less as they would only see what has been allowed to be presented before them during the case).
 
Oh that's just killed me this morning haha. "Before you punch me in the gut could you take your shoes off?"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe that's why the police searches were stressing him out, the sight of all those burly coppers ruining his carpets in their hobnail boots! :D
 
The "paper file" would make sense. He wants to present his defence but doesn't want to take the stand in order to do so.

Can he still be cross examined based upon the paper statement?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Florrie, nothing to worry about. Every day the Trial is listed as Paper File.

He will be there , in person....well unless he sends in a sick note of course - very possible imo
 
Remember thanks to UK Law Reform an adverse inference can be made by the Judge where the accused does not testify if the relevant test is met.

In this case I believe it would be met by the IS bringing Nick and Joe into the mix late in the day, and then refusing to testify.

The Judge could direct the jury to make an adverse inference as to this exculpatory story based on IS failure to testify to their existence.

I am of the opinion (and could be entirely wrong of course) that if he is relying on them as a defence, IS absolutely HAS to give evidence now that Nico and Jose have been even mentioned in court. If he doesn't do so, the judge would have to tell the jury to strike out all mention of them.

I called up this page, and the whole issue around hearsay evidence is quite confusing:

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/hearsay-evidence-in-criminal-cases/

We we also have to consider the arrest caution:

“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.”

And as we know IS went pretty much full no comment, certainly no mention was made about N&J until he told the son about them late in the year.

I think thiat's called shooting yourself in the foot :D Will be VERY interesting to hear what he has to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
1,912
Total visitors
1,986

Forum statistics

Threads
602,086
Messages
18,134,445
Members
231,231
Latest member
timbo1966
Back
Top