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

[perfectvirgo]

I do think it's possible that they went easy on the boys... if only on the facts they have already lost their mother, their soon to be step mother was murdered and their father is undoubtedly a murderer. I'd go easy on them myself tbh. I think if the trial was going to come down to their testimonies it might be different but I reckon IS has dug himself a big enough hole....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree it was gentle. But then they were Prosecution witnesses on direct examination so no leading questions. Cross exam might have been rather more adversarial were they to have been witnesses for the defence yet to come. And yep, his hole's big.

 

[Alyce]

Thank you.

Another interesting detail is that he emailed Helen on the night of 15th April.

What was he trying to do there? Set up an electronic trail that police could read, because they wouldn't ever recover her phone? He wouldn't know at that stage that they would ask for his phone.

I think that was triggered by it being the first day the police came round...time for him to show a bit of concern for his missing partner !

 

[Powertool]

Just knew him during school years. Nothing out of the ordinary, polite, good at rugby (probably because he was always the tallest in our year), excelled in physics class. His nickname was Cyclops, I guess because of his height, not that he had only one eye. No girlfriends that I can remember.
He made local newspaper headlines because he walked into (and shattered) a glass door at the Stevenage Leisure Center in the late 80's requiring stitches to his face.

 

[DollyDiamond]

The 'pointing' of the sniffer dog is more evidence I keep forgetting - wonder if the irony of a dog helping to convict him will actually dawn on IS?

Gosh I hadn't thought of that - wonderful irony, Boris' four-legged friend helping to get justice for him and Helen.

 

[Duchy]

Thank you.

Another interesting detail is that he emailed Helen on the night of 15th April.

What was he trying to do there? Set up an electronic trail that police could read, because they wouldn't ever recover her phone? He wouldn't know at that stage that they would ask for his phone.

No he wouldn't know they would ask for his phone, and they never got his phone, or hers, but they could access her email, and his. I had a horrible thought (fleetingly) - he sent a single X on Diane's birthday and *advertiser censored* to Helen on 15th - could these kisses be a sinister fingers up FU type of gesture? What a 'orrible mind I have!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Just knew him during school years. Nothing out of the ordinary, polite, good at rugby (probably because he was always the tallest in our year), excelled in physics class. His nickname was Cyclops, I guess because of his height, not that he had only one eye. No girlfriends that I can remember.
He made local newspaper headlines because he walked into (and shattered) a glass door at the Stevenage Leisure Center in the late 80's requiring stitches to his face.

May I ask, as you have read the threads since the start, have you any strong feeling one way or the other about whether he is guilty or not? Please ignore the question if you feel you would rather not say.

 

[Powertool]

May I ask, as you have read the threads since the start, have you any strong feeling one way or the other about whether he is guilty or not? Please ignore the question if you feel you would rather not say.

One word, GUILTY.

 

[Tortoise]

Sykic Cyclops

 

[DollyDiamond]

sykic cyclops

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Laughing so much I misspelled a HA!

 

[Alyce]

Sykic Cyclops

Yes, that makes a lot of sense and with the interest in Physics

 

[Powertool]

Sykic Cyclops

Yes Tortoise, that connection has been on my mind for a couple of weeks.

 

[neteditor]

Powertool, welcome and thank you for your contributions, it's always great to have the flesh put on people, as it were. We've of course got our wonderful members who give up their time to attend court, but they're not seeing IS in a normal human environment. To have input from someone who genuinely knew him well, albeit long ago, is amazing. Thanks again, much appreciated.

 

[icemaiden65]

Interesting minor fact, Diane (his now deceased wife) was actually called Diane Helen.

 

[Moll]

I forgot to thanks Tortoise for that hugely helpful timeline of events, which was such a useful aide memoire for me and I'm sure all of us at this stage in the trial.

Without meaning to sound trite, you know what could have made me wonder if IS was innocent after all? If even one witness had said he adored Boris! To my mind, that alone would have been powerful evidence that he was not a dangerous psychopath, and that he was incapable of killing and dumping Helen and Boris like that. But in fact all we have heard on the subject of IS relationship with Boris (I think - please correct me if I'm wrong), is that according to his son he liked the dog and would take him for walks (not exactly fulsome) and one of Helen's friends said she got the impression Ian was 'not a pet person'. I know I'm a crazy dog lover but I strongly maintain that a person who adores an animal, as Helen adored Boris, would be incapable of an evil premeditated crime like this.

* Just want to add, having re-read this post, that I realise I have applied a huge generalisation to a very complex subject! I'm sure there are examples of murders owning pets of which they are apparently fond (serial killer Dennis Nilsen lived with his dog for example). But I still maintain IS couldn't have cared a jot about Boris, just as he didn't care for Helen - if any witness had stated that he adored Boris, played with him, cuddled him etc, it would have made me think twice about the man).

Are you serious, DD? I think it's completely irrelevant. (I know I am opening myself to the loathing of dog-lovers.)

He could have appeared to adore Boris, or indeed really been fond of Boris, and I'd still think he was guilty because the evidence of the bodies in the cess pit and the dog reacting inside the house, plus numerous other circumstantial details we have gone over and over, make it beyond the bounds of possibility that he isn't.

Likewise if he never liked the dog and made that plain - which would have been a foolish thing too do as he had designs on Helen - I wouldn't think it was a crucial pointer to his guilt if that wasn't clear from other evidence.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Are you serious, DD? I think it's completely irrelevant. (I know I am opening myself to the loathing of dog-lovers.)

He could have appeared to adore Boris, or indeed really been fond of Boris, and i'd still think he was guilty because the evidence of the bodies in the cess pit and the dog reacting inside the house, plus numerous other circumstantial details we have gone over and over, make it beyond the bounds of possibility that he isn't.

Likewise if he never liked the dog and made that plain - which would have been a foolish thing too do as he had designs on Helen - I wouldn't think it was a crucial pointer to his guilt if that wasn't clear from other evidence.

I take your point, his liking/disliking of our four legged friends doesn't make him innocent or guilty. I was making the point (as a self confessed dog lover) that if I personally was convinced by a witness that he genuinely liked Boris and had shown a real and consistent affection for him, it would put a seed of doubt in my head about his ability to kill him - and more to the point, Helen. He had after all known Boris for long enough to have bonded with him if he was capable of being fond of an animal. There's no evidence that he was and that's no surprise at all.

 

[ZaZara]

I think if you were worming your way into someone's life, the first thing you'd do is pretend you loved their dog as much as they did.

How well I remember THAT boyfriend!

Adored me and my dogs (or so I thought).

After he broke up, he'd post messages to mutual friends online like Lovely Tiger! Great picture! Cats, I adore cats. Cats are my heroes. Dogs not so much. In fact not at all.

I remember staring at my screen and thinking: hey wait a minute, you loved those dogs, played with them, walked, took them to the beach .... What is this??!
It took a while before I realized that not only it was over :tears:
but that nothing about it had been real either hwow: hwow: hwow:.
That took considerably longer to overcome.

Did I tell you I met him on the internet? I met him on the internet. Thank heavens I wasn't about to become rich.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm just starting with my analysis of the call to police.

"Hello there. My partner has been missing since Monday and not contacted anyone, said she was going away, hasn’t gone…ended up where she said she was going, so I’m…we’ve just decided we should report it."

"My partner has been missing since Monday"

If we believe this, we have to believe the story of the note is false.

This statement means he knows that Helen was missing on Monday.

Examples - I last used my bank card and put it in my purse on Saturday. I look for it on Wednesday and it’s gone. I don’t know how long it’s been missing, it could have been stolen on Monday. I wave my friend off on the train on Sunday. On Friday I’m expecting her to return and she doesn’t arrive. I don’t assume she went missing on Sunday, the day she left.

If the note was genuine, he would not know how long Helen’s been missing. But he does. Had Helen gone without leaving a note he could say that.

"so I’m…we’ve just decided we should report it."

By correcting himself from I’m to we’ve he is including people that he hasn’t already introduced. It’s almost impossible for the brain to make a mistake when selecting which pronoun to use, it’s a fairly automatic process. How many people are making this call? One. How many partners does Helen have? One. Because he’s corrected himself, where it’s not logical to do so because he hasn’t mentioned anyone else yet, it’s really important to him.

Why is it important to him to share responsibility for this decision to report it? Is it to say I’m not concerned, as the general tone of his call reflects?

Should also points to reluctance.

 

[DollyDiamond]

How well I remember THAT boyfriend!

Adored me and my dogs (or so I thought).

After he broke up, he'd post messages to mutual friends online like Lovely Tiger! Great picture! Cats, I adore cats. Cats are my heroes. Dogs not so much. In fact not at all.

I remember staring at my screen and thinking: hey wait a minute, you loved those dogs, played with them, walked, took them to the beach .... What is this??!
It took a while before I realized that not only it was over :tears:
but that nothing about it had been real either hwow: hwow: hwow:.
That took considerably longer to overcome.

Did I tell you I met him on the internet? I met him on the internet. Thank heavens I wasn't about to become rich.

Chilling. There are many different levels of sociopath male, there are lots of them out there - and every one of them is a member of an internet dating site I know, I've done the research, (a bitter spinster, who me? Whatever gave you that idea, Lol!)

 

[Joely 123]

Thank you Cotton Weaver for pointing to 'The Widower', which I watched today. MW certainly did hold a mirror to many aspects of IS's character (as has so far been revealed). And watching the 'drug induced sleeping' was especially poignant - along with the way MW inveigled his way into the life of women with their own independent financial status (after gaining Life Insurance from his first wife, Claire's death' .. setting up further Life Insurance policies for his second wife .. and managing to move money into 'Joint Accounts'. And choosing the women he pursued for their compassion through their health support (Helen through her loss of JS made her equally compassionate, appreciative and generous in sharing a new life with IS). And faked cervical injury - Leukaemia .. and other self-inflicted representation of 'poor me'.

 

[MillyM]

If they make a drama doc of this case, been watching Emily Watson in Apple Tree Yard on BBC1 and could envisage her playing Helen.