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

[Alyce]

On XX Oliver admitted that Helen’s Jeep hadn’t been put into the garage until after April 15, 2016.

He confirmed that at the time police first attended the Royston house, there was nothing covering up that manhole cover (to the cesspit) in the garage.

Oliver

Oliver's evidence
Oliver confirmed that at the time police first attended the Royston house, there was nothing covering up that manhole cover (to the cesspit) in the garage. ( which we know was April 15 )

It was kept outside when the car first arrived and Helen practiced moving it around. After Helen was no longer there, dad moved the Jeep into the garage.



Jamie's statement - made today - says

What I do recall on Sunday April 17 2016, police were at my home address after Helen was reported missing. “A police officer was at the address, and I recall a conversation about moving helen’s car from outside the house to the garage to stop people prying or jumping to conclusions she had returned home. The car was not moved while police were present. I think it was moved by my dad Ian Stewart either later that night or the following day. “In the garage on the left hand side was an MG sports car, and my black Seat. “On the right hand side of my car was Helen’s fiat 500. Dad’s black BMW was also there. “When Helen’s Jeep was moved it was placed where the BMW was, and the BMW moved to the front of the house.”

So BMW is put over the manhole cover at some time after April 15, but before April 17.
Which says to me that IS realised he needed to cover the manhole cover, after he saw that the police were getting a bit more serious than he had expected.

Then sometime on the evening of April 17, or early on April 18, IS moves the BMW and puts the Jeep in its place.
When Helen’s Jeep was moved it was placed where the BMW was

 

[Cherwell]

On XX Oliver admitted that Helen’s Jeep hadn’t been put into the garage until after April 15, 2016.

He confirmed that at the time police first attended the Royston house, there was nothing covering up that manhole cover (to the cesspit) in the garage.

Oliver

I don't trust him.

 

[MillyM]

13:19
Helen Bailey commented on running away

“On April 20 I contacted Hertfordshire police as I wanted to tell them of comments made by Helen in 2014, which showed how upset she was at home caused by Stewart’s son Oliver. “On March 2, 2016, Helen sent me a private message describing problems she was having. “She finished the post saying ‘shall we all just run away, change our names and start again?’ That’s the end of the statement.

Yep, all shows the coldness both sons have demonstrated in court and in statements towards her.

 

[ColourPurple]

It was a terraced cottage. If he had driven down I am sure the neighbours would have seen him. I feel he already had the Broadstairs Router at home and took it with him in order to create a false link from Helen's phone. The police did not find the router in Broadstairs but found it on search the Royston house.

But they did find the router at Broadstairs on their first search there and ran some tests which is how they knew Helen's phone had pinged, then later found it was missing and found it at Royston with the info gone from it.

 

[MillyM]

I don't trust him.

Definitely more to both than we have heard. Much doesn't add up. And I fail to believe neither knew nothing, even if they weren't part of it.

 

[cottonweaver]

So that confirms the lunch - it was on the Tuesday April 5

How very very sad that she is sat opposite him, toasting his health at that meal, only a day after he has drugged her, at least once, and whilst he is finalising his plans to kill her.


and that she was hating being at home due to family issues there.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yep, all shows the coldness both sons have demonstrated in court and in statements towards her.

Links to both sons statements on this page

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...yston-11-April-2016-4&p=13111431#post13111431


which perhaps explains why it set off members' "hinky meters" here.

 

[Interested Bystander]

So this implies that the manhole cover was hidden all the time - first by the bmw and then by Helen's Jeep

I agree with your interpretation. I am beginning to think that perhaps the boys are not as truthful or maybe they are forgetful. I do hope they are not implicated in any way.

 

[Tortoise]

On XX Oliver admitted that Helen’s Jeep hadn’t been put into the garage until after April 15, 2016.

He confirmed that at the time police first attended the Royston house, there was nothing covering up that manhole cover (to the cesspit) in the garage.

Oliver

I'd rather have heard it from a police officer. I think Oliver was only confirming the position of the Jeep in the question asked, and then they put 2 and 2 together to make 5 when they got a further admission that there was nothing covering the manhole.

I haven't heard (I don't think) that Oliver was home on the night the police first attended, (he may have seen the Jeep outside in the morning) and he was away at cadet camp all weekend.

 

[neteditor]

Let's bear in mind that we are reading reporters' notes which are being scribbled down (so to speak) at speed. There are bound to be some typos and inaccuracies.

Back in my day (I know I keep saying that!) court reporting was considered a very serious business. Trainee journalists had to pass their NTCJ qualification before they got near a court room on their own. We had to learn about the law as it pertains to publishing and courts etc. We had to get 100wpm shorthand too! There was no taking your laptop/phone into court in those days (well, they were not available to your average joe back then!)

If you misreport what is said in open court you can get into serious trouble! I'd really be mortified if I was one of those reporters and getting it wrong. We'd all spend a fair bit of time in the press room conferring on our notes to make sure we had quotes accurate and everyone had it noted down the same. The story I mentioned upthread where my colleagues were charged with contempt came about because the report attributed a quote to the judge, when in fact it had been said by the defence counsel.

 

[Evendor]

My issue with this case is that there is a lot that doesn't add up. How can it be proved that it was IS and not another person at the property. These statements are starting make me thing if IS didn't do it then one the sons must have. With that conjecture, perhaps IS is just trying to protect them.

Who knows, all I feel is that there's not enough concrete proof to put it all on him!

 

[Joely 123]

Wtf happened to the 160k he was supposed to have? This evidence is getting ridiculous now


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And I thought the cess pit cover was supposed to weigh around 9 kg.

 

[Tortoise]

My issue with this case is that there is a lot that doesn't add up. How can it be proved that it was IS and not another person at the property. These statements are starting make me thing if IS didn't do it then one the sons must have. With that conjecture, perhaps IS is just trying to protect them.

Who knows, all I feel is that there's not enough concrete proof to put it all on him!

He admits he was there and no one else was.

 

[Evendor]

But perhaps he would say that to protect somebody, that's all I'm saying.

 

[neteditor]

He admits he was there and no one else was.

Which doesn't preclude him covering for a son, unless the son has an alibi.

 

[Cherwell]

Back in my day (I know I keep saying that!) court reporting was considered a very serious business. Trainee journalists had to pass their NTCJ qualification before they got near a court room on their own. We had to learn about the law as it pertains to publishing and courts etc. We had to get 100wpm shorthand too! There was no taking your laptop/phone into court in those days (well, they were not available to your average joe back then!)

If you misreport what is said in open court you can get into serious trouble! I'd really be mortified if I was one of those reporters and getting it wrong. We'd all spend a fair bit of time in the press room conferring on our notes to make sure we had quotes accurate and everyone had it noted down the same. The story I mentioned upthread where my colleagues were charged with contempt came about because the report attributed a quote to the judge, when in fact it had been said by the defence counsel.

There have been several examples of errors in reporting, and they've been picked up and repeated in MSM. Fairly minor stuff, but still. The difference today of course is that it's all instant. There's no time for proof reading, checking or editing, it's all out there straight away.

 

[Alyce]

How very very sad that she is sat opposite him, toasting his health at that meal, only a day after he has drugged her, at least once, and whilst he is finalising his plans to kill her.


and that she was hating being at home due to family issues there.

Indeed. They were sitting there, both looking towards the future, now that IS had the all clear...sadly, their plans for the future were very, very different.

 

[ColourPurple]

My issue with this case is that there is a lot that doesn't add up. How can it be proved that it was IS and not another person at the property. These statements are starting make me thing if IS didn't do it then one the sons must have. With that conjecture, perhaps IS is just trying to protect them.

Who knows, all I feel is that there's not enough concrete proof to put it all on him!

I think thats a thought that has crossed a few minds. The sons statements were very vague in parts and police do not seem interested in pursuing them. With IS as the only one on trial too much questioning in court of the sons statements could end up weakening the case agaisnt IS, so we wouldn't see them going down that line anyway.

Meanwhile IS has dreamed up Joe & Nick and presumably he'll be trying to say that they did anything that he didn't do. So if the router was pinged in Broadstairs on April 15th and IS was in Royston .. ah it must have been Joe & Nick.

 

[MillyM]

My issue with this case is that there is a lot that doesn't add up. How can it be proved that it was IS and not another person at the property. These statements are starting make me thing if IS didn't do it then one the sons must have. With that conjecture, perhaps IS is just trying to protect them.

Who knows, all I feel is that there's not enough concrete proof to put it all on him!

Along same lines as my thoughts exactly. I keep thinking of the JonBenet Ramsay case. Four people in house, one dead, and by sheer evidence the killer had to be one of the remaining three. But who? All covered each other.

 

[Cherwell]

Which doesn't preclude him covering for a son, unless the son has an alibi.

You can be sure that the police have thoroughly checked the whereabouts of the sons, being the other residents of the house. That would be the first thing on the list.