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

[neteditor]

I hate it too for that reason Cherwell, but my friends and family are far flung and it's the only way to keep in touch. I've tried binning my account in the past but I miss contact with my people. I hate that it recommends people I might know and they're friends of people that are not even on my own friends list. You just know it's recommending you to strangers too. Wish I could give it up.

 

[Cherwell]

and ......he talks of Helen only driving the bmw near the coast and in a car park. If she was that uncomfortable about driving the beemer, then I cant see her taking a Jeep on the motorway down to Broadstairs.

No, I get that. I am not comfortable driving a car until I am used to it. Once I have driven it a few times I am fine.

He only says she hasn't driven the BMW much:
“Helen’s insured to drive the BMW but has only done it about twice, once near the coast and once in a car park.”

My guess is, if she's anything like me, she would have been quite comfortable with the BMW if she had been driving it regularly. And she was with the Jeep - didn't she say somewhere that she loved it?

 

[Alyce]

I must have missed that bit about the phone

Stewart mentioned missing items

Dc Lockwood said on April 23, Stewart sent him a text saying ‘any news?’

“There was conversation about an image of someone at Morrisons - he was adamant he had been shown an image of a woman at Morrisons but I didn’t know anything about it.

“As far as I was concerned, there was no image.

“Stewart wanted to see a CCTV image he had seen previously, but we weren’t prepared to email that to him.

“On April 23, Stewart said he had found an iPhone belonging to Helen, a white iPhone 5.

“Stewart also said that a cream of Helen’s was missing from her bedside, she didn’t take medication other than vitamins, and none appeared to be missing.

“He also said a yellow collar of Helen’s dog, Boris, could not be found.”

 

[Cherwell]

Ah, interesting bit re the alarm here
The events of April 11...

Stewart is then explaining how he went to the rubbish tip, the doctor’s surgery and the solicitors on April 11, but tells officers that he can’t remember in which order he did so.

Stewart admits that himself and Helen didn’t set the house alarm when the dog, Boris, was at home.

He said: “He absolutely hates the noise, it must be a high pitched noise. He freaks out. It’s almost like he’s terrified.”

But Helen is supposed to have taken Boris with her, so she would have set the alarm when she left.
Oops! another hole IS dug for himself.

 

[Cherwell]

I hate it too for that reason Cherwell, but my friends and family are far flung and it's the only way to keep in touch. I've tried binning my account in the past but I miss contact with my people. I hate that it recommends people I might know and they're friends of people that are not even on my own friends list. You just know it's recommending you to strangers too. Wish I could give it up.

I use a false name. People who know me, know it's me

 

[Alyce]

From Day One of the Trial
Confirms the info re the statement about the dynamic duo !



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.”

 

[DollyDiamond]

Let's hope Dolly doesn't get any ideas about trying this one out after the pills experiment!

Ha! Ha! Ha! I nearly spat my (non drugged) tea out at that!

 

[Moll]

When I say thank you for your useful post, on this occasion, DD, I just mean I am glad to see you're still with us!

 

[DollyDiamond]

IMHO you could not have said this better, DollyDiamond!
One of these threads is that Helen complained of being tired and falling asleep, making clear that she did not know the cause and wasn't self-medicating the Zopiclone.
IMHO the prosecution has a strategy that is at least partly based on exclusion: they may perhaps not be able to prove certain things, but they can prove that other things did not happen: the self-medication of Zopiclone, who would know about the pit, and a lot of unusual behaviour vs ususal behaviour. Plus that no one knew about the mythical Nick and Joe nor about financial disputes other than those mentioned (and Nick and Joe were not involved).

It is up to the defense to disentangle these strands. IMHO they will put discreet emphasis on IS' physical condition, but we have already dealt with that one here on WS and so will the prosecution

Thanks, you've neatly summed up my hope re the prosecution's thinking/strategy. The defence simply don't have enough ammunition to put a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind: the evidence of exclusion you pointed up - that Helen had been regularly drugged without her knowledge, that she and Boris' bodies were found within the family home, the bizarre matter of IS claiming she left the Broadstairs note which no one but him saw, and that he believed she and Boris had left the house (they had not, and in fact she and Boris remained in the house for three whole months!) all strands of evidence that point powerfully to one person, Ian Stewart.

 

[DollyDiamond]

When I say thank you for your useful post, on this occasion, DD, I just mean I am glad to see you're still with us!

Bless you, that's kind. I only took a tiny sip but I did have a VERY long lie in today!

 

[Alyce]

A section from Tracey Stratton's evidence below.

We know that Helen told her neighbour -on April 5 - that IS had been given the all clear. We dont have an exact date for the all clear, but I would guess it was only a few days, at most, before Helen told her neighbour.
So no wonder IS had to go full steam ahead with his plans, with a wedding back on the agenda.


Tracey said she would discuss the wedding venues, dresses etc with Helen online. She said after finding out Ian needed an operation, things were put on hold in that respect. She said after Ian was given the all clear the wedding came back on the agenda, and wedding discussions continued.

 

[DollyDiamond]

<RSBM>



This is incorrect.

UK Bar Standards Board

12 Confessions of Guilt

12.1 In considering the duty of counsel retained to defend a person charged with an offence who confesses to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged, it is essential to bear the following points clearly in mind:
&#8230;
(b) that the issue in a criminal trial is always whether the defendant is guilty of the offence charged, never whether he is innocent;

(c) that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution.

12.2 It follows that the mere fact that a person charged with a crime has confessed to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged is no bar to that barrister appearing or continuing to appear in his defence, nor indeed does such a confession release the barrister from his imperative duty to do all that he honourably can for his client.

12.3 Such a confession, however, imposes very strict limitations on the conduct of the defence. A barrister must not assert as true that which he knows to be false. He must not connive at, much less attempt to substantiate, a fraud.

You can read more at the following link:

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-old-code-of-conduct/written-standards-for-the-conduct-of-profession

Thank you. Goodness that's a complex concept. So if the accused (pleading Not Guilty) tells his defence lawyer on the quiet that he's actually Guilty, said defence lawyer can continue to defend him even though he has been advised of his client's guilt BUT as stated in point 12.3, he will now be strictly limited in terms of his conduct and essentially must not be seen to collude with his client 'to substantiate a fraud'.

I wonder if what this actually means in reality is that the defence lawyer would have his hands tied to such an extent that the only sensible course would be for him to stand down and tell his client to instruct a new defence team (as mentioned in neteditor's post)? I can't see any defence lawyer wanting to continue with a case under such uncomfortable restrictions, especially if he was potentially putting his own neck on the line?

 

[LozDa]

A section from Tracey Stratton's evidence below.

We know that Helen told her neighbour -on April 5 - that IS had been given the all clear. We dont have an exact date for the all clear, but I would guess it was only a few days, at most, before Helen told her neighbour.
So no wonder IS had to go full steam ahead with his plans, with a wedding back on the agenda.


Tracey said she would discuss the wedding venues, dresses etc with Helen online. She said after finding out Ian needed an operation, things were put on hold in that respect. She said after Ian was given the all clear the wedding came back on the agenda, and wedding discussions continued.

One of my big frustrations is that they didn't clarify exactly what was discussed by Helen & Tracey in relation to the venues. Surely, Tracey would be able to give a strong indication as to whether or not it was the case that the venues had cancelled and if Helen was distressed by them falling through. This small bit of information would give a very good indication of whether or not IS was lying about Helen's frame of mind. I mean, it's clear she didn't run away, so it's not prudent to his defence story, but I think it's very indicative of IS's general character and a conclusive bit of evidence that seems to have been missed that would show he and his story are not to be trusted.

 

[DollyDiamond]

I am so late to the party, but I do so hope Dolly is still ok after her cup of tea!! I've not laughed so hard in a while. Amazing stuff, SUCH dedication!

Pretty sure IS will be taking the stand only to try and prove how weak and feeble he is, so couldn't possibly have done this crime. I think he knows the jig is up regarding Joe and Nick, but I think he's hoping he can cast just about enough doubt...

I think we're all looking forward to the entertainment. Although, of course, only because when he's sent down I want him to feel like an absolute chump for having to have sat there and tried to convince people of Joe and Nick. He's manipulated so many people throughout this entire case (and I believe throughout his life, but we won't go down that road again - the thread has been blissfully amicable for a long while again, I don't want to risk it...!!), so it will be such sweet justice.

Seriously - Dolly, you're ok, right? :laughing:

My new Websleuth friends are very sweet! I rang my mum today and mentioned what I'd done yesterday and she nearly wet herself laughing! (No surprise to her, she's always known I'm mad). Won't be testing the chloroform theory though, gosh that post was funny!

 

[Cherwell]

One of my big frustrations is that they didn't clarify exactly what was discussed by Helen & Tracey in relation to the venues. Surely, Tracey would be able to give a strong indication as to whether or not it was the case that the venues had cancelled and if Helen was distressed by them falling through. This small bit of information would give a very good indication of whether or not IS was lying about Helen's frame of mind. I mean, it's clear she didn't run away, so it's not prudent to his defence story, but I think it's very indicative of IS's general character and a conclusive bit of evidence that seems to have been missed that would show he and his story are not to be trusted.

Yes, I agree. And also, from what I have read, I wouldn't have thought Helen would want an ostentatious or extravagant wedding.
I may be completely wrong and her feelings might have changed, so it would be interesting to hear from Tracey what kind of plans she was making.

 

[Alyce]

No, I get that. I am not comfortable driving a car until I am used to it. Once I have driven it a few times I am fine.

He only says she hasn't driven the BMW much:
&#8220;Helen&#8217;s insured to drive the BMW but has only done it about twice, once near the coast and once in a car park.&#8221;

My guess is, if she's anything like me, she would have been quite comfortable with the BMW if she had been driving it regularly. And she was with the Jeep - didn't she say somewhere that she loved it?

Yes she did, I will have a look through the blog, see if I can find out when she bought it.

 

[Alyce]

From Planet Grief

Answers the question of where was Helen's study/office

ground floor


I went downstairs to my desk


http://planetgrief.com/2015/09/21/tales-of-the-unexpected/

 

[snoopydog]

This is what I'm piecing together from the evidence.

On the day he killed Helen, IS didn't have a story planned beyond Helen and Boris going out locally, either walking or visiting someone by public transport or taxi, and not returning. Perhaps she forgot to tell him she had plans, he is playing on her forgetfulness. He will raise the alarm on Tuesday when he wakes up and realises she didn't come home while he was asleep.

That is the sole reason behind the story about Helen having an incident Monday morning in her Jeep.

It would explain why her Jeep was outside and she wasn't there. I believe he told that story to his sons on Monday evening (I do not believe the 'coincidence' of two sons knowing Helen wasn't at home and not saying a word, one maybe, not both). After that IS has to repeat that driving incident to all and sundry because that's what he'd told J and O. It became a permanent fixture in his account of Monday morning. Police were unable to find Helen or her Jeep anywhere on CCTV or ANPR that morning. Helen's online activity that morning shows IS made it up.

IS panicked overnight about his hiding place for Helen and Boris not being as secure as he once reckoned. What if it was discovered? He had to do something to stop a search and give everyone an indication of where Helen had gone. He thought this was fail-safe, everyone would be thrown off the scent by the Broadstairs story, police would have no reason to search the home beyond anything cursory, looking for her belongings etc.

He has to invent a note because it's too late now to send a fake text message from Helen's phone, and it's also too late to send an email from Helen to him. He knows his sons know Helen wasn't home on Monday night.

While O and J are at work on Tuesday he practices Helen's handwriting and produces a note. "Gone to Broadstairs. Ring me. Love you xx".

He hasn't included anything in the note about Helen not wanting him to contact her in any way. He's written 'ring me'. He's made it a loving note because he doesn't want anyone to think they had argued before she left.

So why does he then start to tell people that Helen said 'don't contact me in any way'? I believe this was first said to John Bailey on Wednesday. He realises (bit slow off the mark) that he hasn't phoned her. He's put 'ring me' in the note looking at it from one angle of creating a harmonious relationship, but not looking at it in terms of it requiring him to act on her request. This is a man who is fire-fighting. As people ask questions he is spurred into action to create a solution. He forgets to destroy the note but doesn't think it's important because he's not expecting police to search his things.

So he dupes J and O first on Tuesday night. Hence the nerves and calling O into his study to tell him Helen's gone to Broadstairs, as if it's some massive announcement. O just shrugs and says it's her place and up to her what she does.

Then John Bailey calls early on Wednesday morning. He's not prepared for that and blurts out 'I thought you would know.' This is an outright lie on the spot, that sees him well and truly bitten on the bum. Whatever he says about Joe and Nick he can't explain saying he thought Helen would have told John she was going to or was already in Broadstairs. The story is that it was unscheduled and unexpected so she didn't give anyone advance notice, and if IS knew Helen had come to harm from J&N she wouldn't have let her brother know she was there for an impromptu break either.

IS has to tell JohnB about the 'Jeep upset', because he's locked into that account now by J & O being aware of it, and John specifically asks him what happened that morning. What stands out is IS can't say why she was upset. This shows he has moved on to another far bigger, better and more relevant story to relate (the note), and is caught out by the question. Prior to the call from John he hadn't invented a plausible scenario and finds it impossible to embellish on the spot. His original plan had already fallen by the wayside. Everyone who knows Helen would not be surprised she hadn't driven herself to Broadstairs because she wasn't a confident driver, so the Jeep outside didn't need an 'incident' any more.

That is how I believe the story evolved by Wednesday.

ETA So why doesn't he write a new note saying 'don't contact me?'. John Bailey asked him to read him the note over the phone. Because he hadn't given the actual wording of this any thought yet, he decided on the spur of the moment to say he had thrown it away.

This became another new addition to his version to tell police on Friday - 'I threw the note away.'

Pretty much agree with all of this. How do we explain the text to her on the Monday evening?

I've also considered IS claiming he didn't know helen was dead and it only occurred to him in December that the only people who could have done what happened are this nick and joe who he had the previous (obviously made up) run in with. Like you said though. How does he explain the note away in that case? And the deleting of everything and the instruction to go to broadstairs.

Ah ha!......What if he says this pair told him they'd kidnapped helen and they were after her money. He was trying to sort out the money for them as ransom. the December reveal still runs a bit late for me on this mind you. If this was the case it should have been when the body was found he said this..... still a **** story though....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[plumage]

I was very struck that the murder seemed to take place a year and a day after the registering of the Power of Attorney and so I looked at the rules to see what they say. It does seem that IS was not well informed about these powers and he may have made a mistake. General power of attorney which lasts a year is usually used when a person goes away and as an interim.



These are often rather overlooked since the introduction of Enduring and now Lasting Powers of Attorney, but they are still very useful in certain situations.
These are the main features which distinguish General Powers of Attorney from Lasting Powers of Attorney:

• General Powers of Attorney last only a year (but it is possible to make a new one as the original one expires).
• A General Power of Attorney does not need to be registered before it can be used. Once signed it is ready for immediate use.
• Whereas a Lasting Power of Attorney, once registered, may be used by the Attorney even after the Donor has lost the capacity to manage his or her own affairs a General Power is automatically revoked if and when the Donor loses capacity.
• Under the terms of a lasting Power of Attorney the Attorney may in certain circumstances make gifts of the Donor’s property. No gift may be made by the Attorney under the terms of a General Power of Attorney.
• It is not possible to incorporate conditions in or limit the scope of the Attorney in a General Power of Attorney.
• Under the terms of a General Power of Attorney the Donor of the Power remains personally liable for the actions taken on his or her behalf by the Attorney.

In other respects General and Lasting Powers of Attorney are similar in that they both empower the Attorney to do anything in relation to the Donor’s private affairs that the Donor of the Power could have done
General Powers of Attorney are commonly used when a fully capable Donor of the Power needs to have his or her affairs managed during a period of physical absence.
Provided that the Donor retains sufficient capacity during the period General Powers of Attorney are also very useful where a Donor has made a Lasting Power of Attorney which is in course of registration and needs to have their affairs managed pending registration.
See also Lasting Powers of Attorney.

 

[neteditor]

Welcome Plumage, very useful info on the POA, nice first post