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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know, bless their hearts - all I can say is, the local rag clearly doesn't pay them a wardrobe allowance, lol!

If it's still the same (and why wouldn't it be) local and regional newspaper reporters are paid an absolutely pittance, barely survival money. There are so many people willing to take your place you never complain.

Made me remember, I met one boyfriend in the queue to interview Paddy Ashdown, he asked me if I had 10p so he could phone his news desk and one thing led to another hahaha! He's now a bigwig at the beeb!
 
I have an appointment in a minute :( but will catch up later
 
I'm another lurker coming out of the woodwork today ��
I've been reading avidly since last summer and would like to add my thanks to you all for your informative and insightful posts. Also for the flashes of gallows humour!

A (rather macabre) point regarding Helen's phone and bank account: if she had a recent iPhone or iPad with iTouch, and the Barclays app installed, IS could have gained access to her account merely by touching her finger/thumb to the 'home' button. Log in details, passwords, PINs not required...
 
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!

It is uncontested that the only people in the house on the day Helen was killed, Monday April 11, were Helen and IS - so only IS could have done it. I feel sure if there was any question of involvement by either of the two sons, the police would have charged them. However I feel more certain than ever that both sons have been economical with the truth in their evidence, to protect their father.
 
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.

I don't think the boys were involved in the murder of HB but I do wonder whether their stories are totally accurate and whether they are protecting IS in some way. We heard that HB did find one of them difficult. Surely he must have been aware of this. HB showed some disapproval with the bowed head situation the girlfriend described and now her friend says that H/B felt she/they were taken for granted.
 
It is uncontested that the only people in the house on the day Helen was killed, Monday April 11, were Helen and IS - so only IS could have done it. I feel sure if there was any question of involvement by either of the two sons, the police would have charged them. However I feel more certain than ever that both sons have been economical with the truth in their evidence, to protect their father.

And it would be out of character for IS to NOT try to manipulate them into getting involved or covering for him after the event (we saw that at the very least with him feeding OS the Nick & Joe story). I can even imagine him telling them that he'd done it for them as, after his brush with death, he was worried that if he died they would lose their home.
 
I'm another lurker coming out of the woodwork today ��
I've been reading avidly since last summer and would like to add my thanks to you all for your informative and insightful posts. Also for the flashes of gallows humour!

A (rather macabre) point regarding Helen's phone and bank account: if she had a recent iPhone or iPad with iTouch, and the Barclays app installed, IS could have gained access to her account merely by touching her finger/thumb to the 'home' button. Log in details, passwords, PINs not required...

I thought exactly this : (


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...er-trial-authors-fiance-grinned-police-tried/

Between Ms Bailey's disappearance and an initial police search of the home on April 15 2016, a Jeep had been moved from the driveway and parked over the septic tank's hatch, the court was told.
 
It is uncontested that the only people in the house on the day Helen was killed, Monday April 11, were Helen and IS - so only IS could have done it. I feel sure if there was any question of involvement by either of the two sons, the police would have charged them. However I feel more certain than ever that both sons have been economical with the truth in their evidence, to protect their father.

But we haven't HEARD that, and I would have liked to to be clear. Could it have been a lack of police detection? A certainty of was IS? Or they were checked? We still don't know what JS was doing on the 11th after bowls s
and why it seems to have taken him so long to get home...
 
I'm another lurker coming out of the woodwork today 🐛
I've been reading avidly since last summer and would like to add my thanks to you all for your informative and insightful posts. Also for the flashes of gallows humour!

A (rather macabre) point regarding Helen's phone and bank account: if she had a recent iPhone or iPad with iTouch, and the Barclays app installed, IS could have gained access to her account merely by touching her finger/thumb to the 'home' button. Log in details, passwords, PINs not required...

:jawdrop:

Thanks for that LOL

And :welcome:
 
Cambridge News (@CambridgeNewsUK) tweeted at 2:31 PM on Tue, Feb 07, 2017:
The Helen Bailey murder trial has now resumed after lunch, with accused Ian Stewart set to give evidence: https://t.co/FdsHUgPLhf
 
Don't know about anyone else, but crikey I've found today really stressful so far :scared: Ridiculous I know, but so many times I want to shout out "No that isn't correct" at the updates from the court.
Haven't even heard IS yet - where's the wine :chillout:
I trust it is all down to inaccurate tweeting from their end, and I do trust the Judge and Jury to make sure everything is correct and understood.
Where's the wine !
 
14:37
Officer tells how it is unknown what clothing Helen Bailey had been wearing

The next witness is Detective Constable Jo-Anne Kerr, from the beds, herts and cambs major crime unit. DC Kerr, who is the officer in the case, has given evidence in the trial before but is now tying up some loose ends. DC Kerr confirms that it is about 2.7miles between the Royston recycling centre, and Bassingbourn surgery - a time of five minutes driving. She confirms that the findings of the wireless router were not shared with Stewart until his interview after arrest on July 11. Helen Bailey was no longer to be seen from April 11, 2016. As to what clothing she was last seen in, there are any number of different accounts. Police are unable to say what she was dressed in on this day.
 
14:39
Sightings of missing author came from across the country

DC Kerr said there was an indication from family members that some items of her clothes were missing, but police weren’t able to ascertain what. “There were various leads and collars for Boris that were still in the house. We weren’t able to establish what of the dog’s was missing. “There were missing flyers and a facebook page in a bid to find Helen, before the finding of her body. “There were a number of people who called in saying they had seen her, from Bristol through to the Shetland islands. “Enquiries were made.”
 
14:41
Officer investigated ‘Joe’ and ‘Nick’

DC Kerr was asked to inquire whether there were mentions of Joe and Nick in documents that appeared to be relating to John Sinfield, Helen’s late husband. “The documentation we were asked to research were diaries from 2001, 2003 and 2009. “There were mentions of a Jo, or Joe, some had contact details or company names. “We were also asked to look into the name of Nick. “I can confirm that this defendant has no previous convictions, or cautions.”
 
Don't know about anyone else, but crikey I've found today really stressful so far :scared: Ridiculous I know, but so many times I want to shout out "No that isn't correct" at the updates from the court.
!

LOL wait till you get to his defence. I'm sure that's going to be even more frustrating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
1,391
Total visitors
1,557

Forum statistics

Threads
602,136
Messages
18,135,515
Members
231,249
Latest member
webrowser
Back
Top