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

[Alyce]

Am very pleased to see statements from friends of Helen, who have given true indications of the kind of domestic problems Helen was dealing with.
Rather than the - there were never any arguments, everything was normal, can't even remember what went on, it was all so normal - that we heard earlier from the house occupants.

 

[neteditor]

12:34
Family visited Stewart in custody

Records established that whilst in prison in Bedford, Stewart called his mum dad and sons, and his lawyers. He was visited by all of these. Helen Bailey’s internet activity on April 11. Web searches were made by Helen, and emails were also sent to various addresses. Web searches were carried out from 9.10am onwards. From 10.14am onwards a series of emails were sent from Helen to tracey Stratton. From 10.41am to 11am, web searches were carried out on various topics, relating to Brocket Hall and other. At 10.58am The last internet activity on her iphone was just before 12noon and involved a visit to a wedding organiser website. By 3.18pm it can be said that Helen’s phone was off and did not connect to the network again. It did however, connect to the broadband router via wifi at the broadstairs address on April 16. Helen Bailey’s membership number for her Barclays bank account. The last successful log in to the account was on April 11, at 2.28pm. This was a two factor log in, meaning it required using the debit card belonging to Helen Bailey to generate a pin sentry passcode. Physical access to the debit card and knowledge of the pin number would have been required. The IP address for the log in matched the router at the Broadstairs address.

So there's no date discrepancy, it was the 16th, the day IS went to the cottage.

 

[neteditor]

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.

No doubt in my mind which one.

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

With this case they are using Helen's logged internet use on the 11th as proof of her still being alive till that ended which woudl mean that only those in the house around that time in the middle of the day are suspects... in other words IS (and the imaginary Nick & Joe). Of course this doesn't mean that people couldn't have got involved after the fact and I've also pondered if something could have happened Sunday night and then somebody else logged in as Helen on Monday as she normally would, in order to create a false trail. From what we can make out nobody spoke to her in person Monday, it was all online and we don't know if her replies that day to people were short and sweet (and easy to fake) or her normal well written humorous style. So just something that sits at the back of my mind as a minute possibility for now.

 

[neteditor]

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.

Indeed I was being slightly facetious My facial expression would have given that away

 

[JudgeJudi]

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.

PC Richard Webster attended Royston in response to the missing person report. He testified,

“There was a BMW parked on the driveway, a jeep parked to the left of the front door facing towards the BMW and a Fiat 500 was in the garage behind the house”.

 

[neteditor]

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.

Absolutely, when I did that job, we were only allowed to make written (or shorthand) notes in court (the court artist for example was not allowed to make sketches, only written notes on what she could see, she'd have to leave court to draw the picture. Don't know if that is still the same or not). We'd then scribble the article together in the press room and queue (!!!) for the payphone. Mass scramble to be the first to hit the phone! We'd call the article in to the copytakers (they just sat all day typing up reporters' articles down the phone). Then the editor would scan through it and make any changes needed, then and only then it would be submitted to the clients (I was working for an agency supplying copy to all the nationals, radio, TV etc). If working for a paper the editor would send to the subs for layout.

Now it seems to be straight to publishing without any fire walls. I'd hate to be doing it now to be fair.

 

[Cherwell]

Indeed I was being slightly facetious My facial expression would have given that away

Yes, sorry, I was just jumping off your comment to make the point for the benefit of others.

 

[neteditor]

With this case they are using Helen's logged internet use on the 11th as proof of her still being alive till that ended which woudl mean that only those in the house around that time in the middle of the day are suspects... in other words IS (and the imaginary Nick & Joe). Of course this doesn't mean that people couldn't have got involved after the fact and I've also pondered if something could have happened Sunday night and then somebody else logged in as Helen on Monday as she normally would, in order to create a false trail. From what we can make out nobody spoke to her in person Monday, it was all online and we don't know if her replies that day to people were short and sweet (and easy to fake) or her normal well written humorous style. So just something that sits at the back of my mind as a minute possibility for now.

I don't think her close friend would have been fooled by anyone (ie IS) pretending to be HB

 

[neteditor]

Yes, sorry, I was just jumping off your comment to make the point for the benefit of others.

Gotta love forum confuzzlement

 

[wolfcub]

13:06
Friend said Helen Bailey was 'upbeat and chipper'

“She was a very upbeat and chipper person. There were times she would be anxious, then she would joke about it and be OK. “She was confident and always knew her own mind. However at one time in London she was driving a Lotus car and a cyclist drove into her and went over the bonnet. “She said she’d had enough of driving. “At Easter 2016 she said her and Stewart were getting married and I needed to keep September 24 free. “She was talking how Stewart recovered well, after being so unwell at hospital. “On April 6, 2016, Helen was telling me Stewart had been bleeding on the bed sheets at night but he had antibiotics and was now OK. “She didn’t appear to be concerned or worried. “On April 10 she was texting me, we were discussing Oliver’s girlfriend who she thought was rude. “When she had made a Sunday dinner, the grandparents had visited and made arrangements to meet her. Oliver and his girlfriend would just go upstairs. “She said they didn’t have any respect for her or Stewart. She found Oliver’s girlfriend slightly controlling of him. “I would say communication with Helen and I was as it normally is. She didn’t appear to be too over the top or holding back, or less herself. “There was nothing that alarmed me.

Well now that's funny, so Helen can recognize someone who is being 'controlling' but never recognized it in IS...Irrelevant to this case of course, but doesn't reflect well on the girlfriend - and reinforces some posters observations that Helen (and her hospitality) seemed somewhat taken for granted...

 

[JudgeJudi]

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!

Both sons have ironclad alibis. Jamie spent Sunday night at the Royston home and went to work on Monday. Oliver spent Sunday night at his girlfriend's place and was also at work on Monday.

The police would obviously have verified that they both attended work on Monday.

 

[Cherwell]

I've also pondered if something could have happened Sunday night and then somebody else logged in as Helen on Monday as she normally would, in order to create a false trail. From what we can make out nobody spoke to her in person Monday, it was all online and we don't know if her replies that day to people were short and sweet (and easy to fake) or her normal well written humorous style. So just something that sits at the back of my mind as a minute possibility for now.

I did wonder about that some time ago, but re the BIB I feel sure that Tracey would have noticed if there was something 'off'. I think she was the last person to be in contact that Monday morning, at least the last who knew Helen well.

 

[ColourPurple]

So there's no date discrepancy, it was the 16th, the day IS went to the cottage.

Ah its a typo then It was originally posted as the 15th not 16th. (on the 12.37 update) If it's the 16th then yup there's no discrepency. Everything makes sense

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12566970

Two failed attempts were made to set up a standing order to a Santander Account for £4,000, starting on May 1. After both these attempts failed, an amendment was made to an existing standing order. The original payment had been set up in january 2015. The amount was for £600 to be paid each month. At 1.34pm on April 11, the amount of this regular payment was amended from £600 to £4,000. All other details remained the same, i.e the next payment would have been on May 7, 2016. On April 15 the same computer submitted log in step one, using the surname Bailey, and her membership number. Log in step two was not attempted, so a full log in attempt was not made. Later at 9.19pm, another attempt at log in step one was made. The IP address for this also matched the Broadstairs address.

 

[neteditor]

I did wonder about that some time ago, but re the BIB I feel sure that Tracey would have noticed if there was something 'off'. I think she was the last person to be in contact that Monday morning, at least the last who knew Helen well.

Pretty safe bet the poor woman has wracked her brains for any hint that HB was going to do a runner that day.

 

[Cherwell]

Gotta say, going by the video reports, all these reporters only look about 12 years old anyway.

 

[neteditor]

urgh those video reports, I DEFINITELY would hate that job these days.

 

[ColourPurple]

I don't think her close friend would have been fooled by anyone (ie IS) pretending to be HB

Like I say, I think it depends what the convo was like. IS knew Helen's style but whether he could fake it in an indepth long convo I doubt it. Just struck me that he phone was switched just as somebody actually decided to call her to speak to her in person. Most likely it was Helen alive and well on Monday but I have that 1% chance it wasn't.

 

[DollyDiamond]

I don't know about anyone else but now, at the eleventh hour, the true tensions in that household are becoming blindingly obvious. Now we know why Oliver's girlfriend reported Helen wasn't friendly to her on the Saturday night before she was killed, kept her head down and didn't chat. She couldn't stand her - and Oliver doesn't sound like a walk in the park to me either!

And now through Oliver's new statement today it becomes clear the cess pit hatch was ALWAYS covered over and not left exposed on the polices' first searches, as we had been led to believe - it was originally covered by IS BMW and Helen's Jeep only took its place. I feel the prosecution slipped up in not making this clear when the subject of the cess pit cover being obscured was first discussed.

Poor Helen - she not only takes on IS, the Knight in shining tin foil, but also his two ADULT sons and a feisty girlfriend! What a wonderful, comfortable, hassle-free life she could have had if she's stayed single, bought a lovely London townhouse for her and Boris and... Well, the 'if only's are too heart breaking to dwell on.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Gotta say, going by the video reports, all these reporters only look about 12 years old anyway. :grandma:

I know, bless their hearts - all I can say is, the local rag clearly doesn't pay them a wardrobe allowance, lol!