GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #5

[DollyDiamond]

This is so reminiscent of Malcolm Webster, whom we were discussing at the weekend. He was constantly (especially as time went on) seeing himself as the victim, and even appealed against his conviction. The other thing that has come to mind since we were discussing him is the statement by one of the sons (Oliver?) that IS would always avoid confrontation. So did MW, in the TV series and I think real life. It didn't stop him planning sneaky murders.

I agree, I was never a bit surprised (nor impressed) at the statement that IS would always 'avoid confrontation'. Of course he would, he's a coward! Confrontation requires honesty, showing your true colours and expressing feelings - none of which were his modus operandi. He far prefers to plot and scheme and sneak behind people's backs, selecting them as a victim without their knowledge so that when he strikes they are totally unprepared and defenceless.

Yes, huge similarities between him and other abusers/murders, narcissists all who play the persecuted victim when their true colours are exposed. What are the chances this excuse for a man will appeal against his conviction?

On a separate subject - front page of tomorrow's Mirror a professional hit man who claims to know who killed Jill Dando. This case has always intrigued me - I worked with her many years ago, a really lovely lady. I never believed Barry George did it, to my mind it had all the hallmarks of a professional hit, not a stalker. Another woman brutally killed as she was planning her wedding. But that's a different thread!

 

[Milenalee]

How he can live with himself after carrying out such a wicked act of unmitigated evil - let alone plead Not Guilty and put Helen's loved ones through further torment to fight for his freedom - is beyond the comprehension of any decent person. I trust the jury will see through his act, and keep the full horror of what he did to Helen and Boris at the forefront of their minds as they consider the evidence.

I think he might have narcissistic personality disorder on top of psychopathy. A sociopath lies deliberately and manipulatively. But they kind of know what they are doing. Someone with NPD actually completely believes their own lies. They can contradict themselves entirely from one day to the next and they actually don't remember the truth or what they have said in the past. They can spin an outrageous tale, and they totally believe it. It makes them quite convincing. But if you challenge their story, or just point out an absurdity or contradiction, they get very angry or they bring out the violins and tell you some woe is me story. The pity party may bear no relationship to the subject at hand.

If he has this he really believes every word he is saying and has no memory of anything that contradicts it while he is saying it. I've known two people with this and it's really unbelievable how far fetched their lies and justifications can go. I could give a bunch of examples but his testimony reminds me of them. "Did you kill Helen?" "No way, I've lost my soulmate!! And I had a such a sad childhood with my depressed mother, I could never bring a friend home." Classic response from a person with NPD. They also tend to think they are better than anyone else and are incapable of doing anything wrong. They can never admit guilt.

This means he might lie about anything... Cambridge, his wife's illness, anything at all.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[snoopydog]

I've been thinking about this unclaimed money. It appears to be trying to imply that he didn't claim it because he didn't need the money or was in no urgency for money. My theory is one of 3 things.
A, he did not know about this money and it's only come up now during investigations.
B, the money is for the sons
and nothing to do with him
C, he's a total idiot and needs to go to jail immediately

Who on this planet would not claim 40k that was sitting somewhere belonging to you? NO ONE. Not even a very rich person


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wolfcub]

Poisoners, apparently, ( never had to look them up before) , tend to share these traits:

non-confrontational
not just "smart," *clever
incredibly immature
parents spoiled
glaring feeling of inadequacy
Vanity

from a pop-psychology article http://www.sheknows.com/living/articles/1083624/personality-type-of-a-poisoner

the longer read :


Wow cottonweaver,
those traits strike eerily close to home...my goodness. So that being 'non confrontational' just increases the likelihood, ironically, of his guilt. Indeed, reinforces once again the possibility that he had something to do with his first wife's death as per the above, late in life as it happened, especially the part which says 'the power and control poisoners experience with success tends to increase his or her*confidence*in future endeavors.'
as this would fit in with his odd surprise at the police being so diligent in their search for Helen, and so early on: obviously not at all what he was expecting...
Good contribution : you should show it to the judge!

 

[Lit Up]

I wonder most of all what Simon Russell Flint is thinking!

It's nothing he hasn't seen before. He defends and prosecutes criminals all the time. This is probably a very easy job for him given the defence is presenting hardly any evidence in this case. All he does is clarify a few points here and there.

 

[Tortoise]

did you spot any real ref to his Dad in that soliloquy, I didn't. Wonder if there's some tension then?
I also liked Alyce's guess that he re-wrote some of his speech over lunch. We know he tries to adapt to survive!

My feeling is that IF it is to do with upbringing then it is about his mum, in his mind at least. Because he talked about her having PND and that sounds like blaming. But at the same time I don't think he would be the type to do any soul-searching. He is just looking for people he thinks brought terrible adversity to his life.

It's interesting that he is looking for people to blame when his case is that he hasn't done this wicked deed.

The absence of reference to his dad is also interesting and could be very significant. Because I do think he harbours deep deep anger. That is his base driving force. How that ever formed we probably will never find out, but I don't think the answers would even be rational anyway.

That is why I think there will be displays of anger in court, even if it's just at the verdict stage.

 

[Joely 123]

I had a look at the MG site ( US) and I know you know of this disorder unfortunately.

I have compassion towards MG - as we all have. But my wicked mind sees him 'googling' this. IS is absolutely true to form - every statement has a basis of a truth in his story ... now the Prosecution needs to help him to divide the fundamental truth to his embellishment in order to protect his life - as he did not protect Helen and Boris.

He definitely seems to have had the underlined but the bits in bold don't seem to apply to him.
I appreciate it's a complex disorder but maybe that thymectomy ( sp?) worked for him then?

Continuing Cotton Weavers post

 

[ColourPurple]

What has surprised me is that the Defence must have known exactly what he was going to say. Why would they let him make a fool of himself in this way?

I think the defence is powerless to stop his verbal diarrhoea! Boring he most certainly is but I'm hoping its a sign he'll talk himself into trouble. I bet the defence would rather have avoided putting him on the stand - but thanks to Nick and Joe, they have no choice. Good old Nick and Joe I say - thanks to them (please God) Mr Trimmer's going to eat him for breakfast!

If you haven't watched The Accused I'd really recommend it. It's a documentary following the defendant in a real case. This week's was a mother accused of neglecting her child by allowing or being aware of the risk that her partner could harm the child. The defence lawyer explained at one point how some defendants can talk their way into a guilty verdict by taking the stand but that they can't stop them if they insist, all they can do is strongly suggest that it's not in their interests. I won't ruin the ending of this week's episode but they were trying to convince their defendant not to take the stand as she was likely to go "off piste". They also mentioned at one point how in the first half of a trial it might seem all one sided and that this can basically wind some defendants up, but that it's the 2nd half of the trial that is their chance to put their case forward and that all they have to try to do is raise doubts in the minds of a couple of jurors.

With IS , as you point out, if he wants to convince them of Nick & Joe's existence he's got to take the stand. The defence will have given him pointers on what to say and what to avoid saying but yeah he seems the type to go "off piste" too . I'm betting they told him to remember to mention his wife having epilepsy and how she'd had other fits. (From his description I wasn't convinced they were epileptic fits when she was pregnant or connected to high blood pressure).

ETA link if anyone does want to watch the documentary

http://www.channel5.com/show/the-accused

 

[Lit Up]

Despite not actually being in court I have taken the liberty of preparing my own court sketch.

(It might look like a few ancient Egyptians down the front but I assure you it's a true likeness of these legal eagle types).

You only included the jury and the judge/counsel. Where am I/public gallery?

 

[DollyDiamond]

LOL! LOL! LOL! What I wouldn't give to see Stuart Trimmer QC shoving IS' head down an unflushed toilet - now that really would be justice!

 

[snoopydog]

You only included the jury and the judge/counsel. Where am I/public gallery?

What were your thoughts today? How did he come across?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

On a separate subject - front page of tomorrow's Mirror a professional hit man who claims to know who killed Jill Dando. This case has always intrigued me - I worked with her many years ago, a really lovely lady. I never believed Barry George did it, to my mind it had all the hallmarks of a professional hit, not a stalker. Another woman brutally killed as she was planning her wedding. But that's a different thread!

Very interesting. Why speak out now though? We shall find out tomorrow I guess.

 

[Tortoise]

Also strikingly absent from today was any compliments of Helen. Not one. I think it's his blind spot and I do think he blames her for her own death in a weird kind of way. He sees her as stupid to have been fooled by him.

 

[Milenalee]

My feeling is that IF it is to do with upbringing then it is about his mum, in his mind at least. Because he talked about her having PND and that sounds like blaming. But at the same time I don't think he would be the type to do any soul-searching. He is just looking for people he thinks brought terrible adversity to his life.

It's interesting that he is looking for people to blame when his case is that he hasn't done this wicked deed.

The absence of reference to his dad is also interesting and could be very significant. Because I do think he harbours deep deep anger. That is his base driving force. How that ever formed we probably will never find out, but I don't think the answers would even be rational anyway.

That is why I think there will be displays of anger in court, even if it's just at the verdict stage.

People with NPD have had one super critical parent that can never be pleased. They then idealize the other parent. Often they search for partners they can put on a pedestal, because they get their sense of self worth from their partner(s). If the person falls off the pedestal, they have to be replaced. Sometimes they have multiple marriages at once. Divorce smacks of failure, easier to just blank out the first marriage in their mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lovinnen]

(From his description I wasn't convinced they were epileptic fits when she was pregnant or connected to high blood pressure

18 years ago, my mum was stopped from driving for 3 years after an epileptic episode. As we were told at the time, had she taken another one in that time it would have confirmed her as epileptic, they would have medicated her and she would have got her licence back right away.

the only reason she had to wait the full 3 years was that she didn't have another episode in that time. Sounds as if Diane might be in the same category? Having an episode does not necessarily mean you are epileptic

ps is anyone else having trouble posting with half written posts disappearing or am I doing something wrong?

 

[ColourPurple]

Also strikingly absent from today was any compliments of Helen. Not one. I think it's his blind spot and I do think he blames her for her own death in a weird kind of way. He sees her as stupid to have been fooled by him.

Yes no compliments but maybe he's saving them for the next chapter of his life story tomorrow. Also the bit where it was reported that he said he never stopped loving Helen, when it was reported on the news earlier, they said he was asked "Did you ever stop loving Helen?" and that he answered "No" which is slightly different to him having said it without any prompting.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes no compliments but maybe he's saving them for the next chapter of his life story tomorrow. Also the bit where it was reported that he said he never stopped loving Helen, when it was reported on the news earlier, they said he was asked "Did you ever stop loving Helen?" and that he answered "No" which is slightly different to him having said it without any prompting.

I will fall off my chair.

I don't think it's in his sights.

 

[ColourPurple]

18 years ago, my mum was stopped from driving for 3 years after an epileptic episode. As we were told at the time, had she taken another one in that time it would have confirmed her as epileptic, they would have medicated her and she would have got her licence back right away.

the only reason she had to wait the full 3 years was that she didn't have another episode in that time. Sounds as if Diane might be in the same category? Having an episode does not necessarily mean you are epileptic

ps is anyone else having trouble posting with half written posts disappearing or am I doing something wrong?

I had something similar when I was trying to post on my ipad the other night.I'd write a long reply then it seemed to refresh and I'd lose the post.

 

[cottonweaver]

18 years ago, my mum was stopped from driving for 3 years after an epileptic episode. As we were told at the time, had she taken another one in that time it would have confirmed her as epileptic, they would have medicated her and she would have got her licence back right away.

the only reason she had to wait the full 3 years was that she didn't have another episode in that time. Sounds as if Diane might be in the same category? Having an episode does not necessarily mean you are epileptic

ps is anyone else having trouble posting with half written posts disappearing or am I doing something wrong?

when you log in, tick the nearby box which says remember me, perhaps your half written msg disappears as the site is timing out before you have finished writing it.

 

[Joely 123]

I am sorry if I didn't link my last post at 11.48 properly. My mistake.

NOT standing up waving my hands and boring the Jury and Judge into sleep and afternoon cake - give me a sugar fix after IS.

I escaped from a man. (he is not an important part of my life story but then I am alive).

I was introduced to him by a long-forever girlfriend. She adored him, she was married and I was single at this time.
Cutting to the important facts .. he noticed my red BMW - and when he came to my house, with a 'For Sale' sign board - I think hew said 'this gets better'. I know he said that but it is hard for me to be so unwise within the actions that followed.
The house was at the stage of ' sale completion'. I was packing, and sorting and no doubt cleaning. this person was at an event with other friends in the little Inn opposite. He came into my house and reached into a box of money from that which I had collected from selling things to be ready to move.
I confronted him. He told me I was mad when we were sharing.
I spent a nightmare sleep after phoning a couple of friends to say 'I can't do this - I don't trust him'.
Wine chat - and you are bound to feel this way etc.
End of story - 6 months later I got rid of him .. after he disconnected phone line, threatened me, I stood up to him (I shall never know how I had that strength beyond Spiritual care) he broke down in tears .. more beyond that but the important factor is that there is the weak man manipulating the stronger women and trying to possess her material wealth.
I am fortunate - this was a May to November speedy exposition of the most painful manipulation I had in life.

I WISH Helen could have seen the signs of IS before time and years that led to her and her most precious person in the world dying under his **** *advertiser censored**d up mind.

IS - you are on remand? With no doubt some extra perks and protection. Wait -until you are proven Guilty - I loathe you but I feel your horrific meltdown, which is coming.