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

[mrjitty]

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.

In a way i was hoping he would not testify so i could see the rules in action!

 

[Duchy]

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!

Oh wow. Thanks Mr Jitty.

 

[Alyce]

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 Will be VERY interesting to hear what he has to say.

IS Defence team submitted a written statement from IS, on December 12, re N & J.
This was just prior to his final pre trial hearing on December 16.

 

[Squamous]

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

But this was from the witness that Lit Up said appeared very unconvincing in court. If in person the witness looked like they might be embroidering their story to fit with their opinion of IS' guilt then I think the prosecution will be wanting to gloss over it.

 

[neteditor]

IS Defence team submitted a written statement from IS, on December 12, re N & J.
This was just prior to his final pre trial hearing on December 16.

I don't know if we've heard this, I'm wondering how N&J got from a story IS told his son during a prison visit, to a statement to his defence team. Did he tell his solicitor too? Did the son tell the solicitor? Either way, he didn't tell the police during interviews and he now appears to be relying on it in court. Up the creek without a paddle!

 

[Duchy]

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

I've seen 'paper file' at the bottom of a few of those notices though so don't think it's a paper statement.

 

[mrjitty]

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 Will be VERY interesting to hear what he has to say.

I realise its confusing - and this is why law of evidence was a Stage 3 / 12 month course back in my day! And one of the most hated!

Not all mention would be struck out - but the judge would need to direct the jury very strictly on this issue, and arguably direct the jury as to an adverse inference.

So for instance, it is in evidence that IS told his son and Nick and Joe in December

This evidence may be used as proof that the conversation occurred (son is direct witness), but not as to the truth of the content (hearsay)

Ditto sworn police statement can be introduced. However failure to testify / be available for X is likely to draw adverse comment from the Judge due to late appearance of this version.

What Counsel for the defence is not allowed to do, is argue based on facts that are not in evidence.

This can get in to quite a grey area.

So counsel may use the "mud on the wall" defence along the lines that the prosecution have not proven to BARD standard that IS is the killer (i.e. there is a reasonable possibility someone else did it).

What Counsel may not do is construct Nick and Joe out of thin air.

Hence why you are correct in saying testimony is critical

 

[Alyce]

I don't know if we've heard this, I'm wondering how N&J got from a story IS told his son during a prison visit, to a statement to his defence team. Did he tell his solicitor too? Did the son tell the solicitor? Either way, he didn't tell the police during interviews and he now appears to be relying on it in court. Up the creek without a paddle!

Oh I agree. Coming up with a story, 5 months down the line ( well 8 if we count from when Helen went * missing* ) is pathetic. Nevertheless, he made the statement pre trial, which would have gone to CPS ? so I would expect his Defence team to have to include it in their defence. If they dont, then surely they look strange.

 

[neteditor]

I realise its confusing - and this is why law of evidence was a Stage 3 / 12 month course back in my day! And one of the most hated!

Not all mention would be struck out - but the judge would need to direct the jury very strictly on this issue, and arguably direct the jury as to an adverse inference.

So for instance, it is in evidence that IS told his son and Nick and Joe in December

This evidence may be used as proof that the conversation occurred (son is direct witness), but not as to the truth of the content (hearsay)

Ditto sworn police statement can be introduced. However failure to testify / be available for X is likely to draw adverse comment from the Judge due to late appearance of this version.

What Counsel for the defence is not allowed to do, is argue based on facts that are not in evidence.

This can get in to quite a grey area.

So counsel may use the "mud on the wall" defence along the lines that the prosecution have not proven to BARD standard that IS is the killer (i.e. there is a reasonable possibility someone else did it).

What Counsel may not do is construct Nick and Joe out of thin air.

Hence why you are correct in saying testimony is critical

Brilliant! Thanks MrJitty you made the situation much easier to understand.

 

[mrjitty]

IS Defence team submitted a written statement from IS, on December 12, re N & J.
This was just prior to his final pre trial hearing on December 16.

It's this statement that has the defence on lifesupport IMO

I am hopeful it will attract adverse comment from the bench

 

[Duchy]

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

[FONT=&]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?

Reporting Helen as missing and lying to the police in interviews.

 

[Alyce]

For the record

from the evidence

Stewart 'did not answer questions on arrest'
The court has been told that when Stewart was arrested he provided no response to police.
But in December a defence statement was handed to prosecutors.
In the statement Stewart asserts that two men named ‘Joe and Nick’ were responsible for the murder and disposal of Helen’s body.

Mr Trimmer continues: “The Crown say simply this was a long planned deliberate killing, a cynically executed murder that had money as its driving motive.”

 

[Moll]

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!

Thank you, mrjitty, for saying this so clearly.
I have had this in mind all along,especially when we all get too worried by evidence that doesn't seem as well produced as it might be...and surely both the prosecution and the judge will stress it.

 

[mrjitty]

Oh I agree. Coming up with a story, 5 months down the line ( well 8 if we count from when Helen went * missing* ) is pathetic. Nevertheless, he made the statement pre trial, which would have gone to CPS ? so I would expect his Defence team to have to include it in their defence. If they dont, then surely they look strange.

This is why it is so great that the UK has law reform in this area

Previously thanks to right to silence, the accused could produce these fairy tales literally at trial.

 

[Alyce]

Reporting Helen as missing and lying to the police in interviews.

I had it down as 3 counts of perverting the course of justice

I agree that reporting Helen as missing has to be one of them

My other two guesses are
Not handing over her mobile, when police have been able to prove he had it in his possession

and possibly - concealement of Helen's body. I know he is also being charged, separately, with preventing a lawful burial, but I have seen concealment of a body shown as a separate charge in other cases.

 

[pinklilies]

I don´t remember if I have seen this page here and I hope my link works,

http://www.helenbaileybooks.com/electrastuff.php

The thing I find bizarre now, about her books are the titles. These books were written years ago and the titles are only 'figure of speeches' but how weird is the coincidence of those titles as to how her husband and herself, eventually died.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MillyM]

ITV REPORT 7 February 2017 at 10:04am
Partner due to give evidence in Helen Bailey murder trial
The defendant is expected to take the stand this afternoon in the Helen Bailey murder trial.

Ian Stewart is accused of ‘secretly’ drugging and killing his fiance in a crime ‘which had money as its driving motive’, the prosecution allege.

The children’s author had been missing for three months when her body was discovered alongside the body of her dog, Boris, in a well underneath the garage of her Royston home.

The jury at St Albans Crown Court heard yesterday that analysis of a laptop belonging to Stewart showed that the digits ‘4,000’ were entered at the exact time a standing order from Helen Bailey’s bank account was changed to that amount.

Detective Constable Mark France told the court that between April 9th and 15th last year the browsing history on that laptop appeared to have been deleted.

The court heard that, using specialist software, Dc France found two fragments that showed there had been activity on the afternoon of April 11th - the day Helen Bailey went missing.

Stewart is alleged to have boosted a standing order to his own account from £600 to £4,000 that afternoon.

The court also heard that Stewart gave conflicting accounts of when he last saw his partner and repeatedly referred to her in the past tense after she disappeared.

Psychiatric nurse Gill Currey told the jury that Mr Stewart said to her that he had last seen Helen walking away from the house down a lane with her dog Boris. Jurors previously heard Stewart informed other nurses and police that he came home to find Ms Bailey had vanished, leaving only a note.

Ms Currey described Stewart as ‘matter of fact’ when discussing his fiance’s disappearance, and ‘quite emotionless’.

Five days after her alleged murder, Ms Bailey's phone connected to the Wi-Fi at her Kent home - the day Stewart was previously said to have visited, his trial also heard.

Ms Bailey's phone was never located by detectives and Stewart is alleged to have disposed of it.

The defendant, of Baldock Road, Royston, Hertfordshire, denies murder, preventing a lawful burial, fraud and three counts of perverting the course of justice.
Last updated Tue 7 Feb 2017

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-02-07/partner-due-to-give-evidence-in-helen-bailey-murder-trial/

 

[icemaiden65]

The thing I find bizarre now, about her books are the titles. These books were written years ago and the titles are only 'figure of speeches' but how weird is the coincidence of those titles as to how her husband and herself, eventually died.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gave me the shivers when I followed that link.

 

[neteditor]

Oh I agree. Coming up with a story, 5 months down the line ( well 8 if we count from when Helen went * missing* ) is pathetic. Nevertheless, he made the statement pre trial, which would have gone to CPS ? so I would expect his Defence team to have to include it in their defence. If they dont, then surely they look strange.

They wouldn't "have" to include it in their defence. If it looked like it would sway the case against them (i.e. look like he completely invented it months down the line having had a long time in prison to cook up a story) they could have left it out completely and never mentioned it to the prosecution. IS was likely advised, OK we can bring this into evidence but you will have to take the stand to back it up since it's only your word and the police have found no evidence of it. If there was any evidence, that would have to have been provided to the police for them to investigate in advance of the trial.

 

[scandinavian girl]

The thing I find bizarre now, about her books are the titles. These books were written years ago and the titles are only 'figure of speeches' but how weird is the coincidence of those titles as to how her husband and herself, eventually died.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That gave me the chills, I didn´t think of it when I read them.