Today was a long stressful day and so sorry I am knackered and probably not going to write anything of much insight.
First of all, I would not suggest anybody trying to come in the morning. The place has become packed out just for IS, the number of press has quintupled; instead of a few little local rags you have the BBC and all the rest of them. They are taking up a very large number of seats and so the spaces for the general public is in a single digit. The court clerk was turning people away today and I felt sorry for them having made the trip, and at one point I thought I was going to be turned away.
The first two witnesses were the standard NHS/police combo. As I've previously said, NHS staff alongside law enforcement are the least interesting, unless they were on the crime scene etc. There were also about three statements read to the court by one of the prosecution counsel who doesn't speak very loudly and has a ratty wig (compared to Stuart Trimmer's which is very trim and neat).
Ian was breathing deeply before he took the stand, but when he did take the stand was generally confident; surprisingly talkative. Whereas other witnesses usually answered yes or no to many statements, every single question he was asked was answered with long, rambling answers, spoken very quickly. His defence counsel found it hard to get a word in, and had to tell him to slow his speech down because lots of people were taking notes and this was his opportunity to set the record straight (it's also harder for him to be guided by the defence if he just bangs on, and he could shoot himself in the foot with an unrestrained remark). This really did nothing to stop him talking a dime a dozen.
It seemed like he genuinely got satisfaction from painting the picture of his life prior to this incident, things a million miles away from this crime, like his student days; and trying to "humanise" himself in the eyes of others, with reference to his late wife and his various health problems. He loved talking about his ailments and from his descriptions of all the surgeries he's had over the past thirty years you might be forgiven for thinking he is the bionic man or something. He is a very tall, large man and nothing I saw would suggest that he would have problems levering open the cesspit hatch or moving a body.
There were several points in which he got emotional; however it was weird because he then very quickly resolved himself and carried on talking a dime a dozen. The points at which he got emotional, from what I can recall, was Helen loving riding in the MG with the wind in her hair; the moment he came round late at night and they embraced (how romantic! lol); talking about how Oliver got on really well with Helen in Cafe Rouge; and then saying he understood why on their date in London, Helen asked him to leave because she had seen too many places which reminded her of John; he could relate, apparently, to getting emotional about one's deceased partner and being reminded of everything shared with them; also at the end when SRF reminded him that tomorrow the prosecution would suggest that he had killed HB; he said "no way".
His defence counsel put it to him at the start that he was standing there accused of murder; perverting the course of justice, theft of money, preventing a lawful burial etc etc etc. He answered not guilty to all of these counts. But what convinces me of his guilt more readily than anything else is the fact that when asked "did you change a standing order from HB's account to yours, from 600pcm to 4000pcm", he says "No". Now I'm no Columbo or Sherlock but am I really meant to believe that somebody else killed Helen and then decided, having gained access to her online banking (using her bank card and cardreader, at the Royston IP address), that rather than steal the money for themselves, they would randomly donate it to Ian? Apart from Robin Hood, which robber in the history of robberies doesn't rob the money for themselves?
He is a contemptible man, and to be honest I don't really know that this is the sum of what I feel about him because it's just so bizarre seeing him try to carry this off. To think that somebody this cold and calculating, but also stupid, has never had any run in with the law in his life whatsoever, I find incredibly unusual. But he is a very complex man in a very complex situation. He demonstrates sadness at times for Helen and his deceased wife but at the other times engages in shameless lies, and how stupid does he think everybody else is? That's the real mystery of this crime. Not whodunnit, or why; that's obvious. Ian did it for money. But having been caught out, how can he in good conscience keep pretending with the weight of so much evidence against him, putting the family through a long and disruptive trial, and wasting everybody's time?
The evidence he gave was about an hour long and I don't think I could add to what the scores of press will have reported on the detail of what he said. Judge Bright at the end said that he was half way through his evidence, so from that I can only assume that he will not be taking the stand after tomorrow has concluded, but maybe I misunderstood. Ah well! We shall see what he has to say tomorrow! (If I get in, that is!)
First of all, I would not suggest anybody trying to come in the morning. The place has become packed out just for IS, the number of press has quintupled; instead of a few little local rags you have the BBC and all the rest of them. They are taking up a very large number of seats and so the spaces for the general public is in a single digit. The court clerk was turning people away today and I felt sorry for them having made the trip, and at one point I thought I was going to be turned away.
The first two witnesses were the standard NHS/police combo. As I've previously said, NHS staff alongside law enforcement are the least interesting, unless they were on the crime scene etc. There were also about three statements read to the court by one of the prosecution counsel who doesn't speak very loudly and has a ratty wig (compared to Stuart Trimmer's which is very trim and neat).
Ian was breathing deeply before he took the stand, but when he did take the stand was generally confident; surprisingly talkative. Whereas other witnesses usually answered yes or no to many statements, every single question he was asked was answered with long, rambling answers, spoken very quickly. His defence counsel found it hard to get a word in, and had to tell him to slow his speech down because lots of people were taking notes and this was his opportunity to set the record straight (it's also harder for him to be guided by the defence if he just bangs on, and he could shoot himself in the foot with an unrestrained remark). This really did nothing to stop him talking a dime a dozen.
It seemed like he genuinely got satisfaction from painting the picture of his life prior to this incident, things a million miles away from this crime, like his student days; and trying to "humanise" himself in the eyes of others, with reference to his late wife and his various health problems. He loved talking about his ailments and from his descriptions of all the surgeries he's had over the past thirty years you might be forgiven for thinking he is the bionic man or something. He is a very tall, large man and nothing I saw would suggest that he would have problems levering open the cesspit hatch or moving a body.
There were several points in which he got emotional; however it was weird because he then very quickly resolved himself and carried on talking a dime a dozen. The points at which he got emotional, from what I can recall, was Helen loving riding in the MG with the wind in her hair; the moment he came round late at night and they embraced (how romantic! lol); talking about how Oliver got on really well with Helen in Cafe Rouge; and then saying he understood why on their date in London, Helen asked him to leave because she had seen too many places which reminded her of John; he could relate, apparently, to getting emotional about one's deceased partner and being reminded of everything shared with them; also at the end when SRF reminded him that tomorrow the prosecution would suggest that he had killed HB; he said "no way".
His defence counsel put it to him at the start that he was standing there accused of murder; perverting the course of justice, theft of money, preventing a lawful burial etc etc etc. He answered not guilty to all of these counts. But what convinces me of his guilt more readily than anything else is the fact that when asked "did you change a standing order from HB's account to yours, from 600pcm to 4000pcm", he says "No". Now I'm no Columbo or Sherlock but am I really meant to believe that somebody else killed Helen and then decided, having gained access to her online banking (using her bank card and cardreader, at the Royston IP address), that rather than steal the money for themselves, they would randomly donate it to Ian? Apart from Robin Hood, which robber in the history of robberies doesn't rob the money for themselves?
He is a contemptible man, and to be honest I don't really know that this is the sum of what I feel about him because it's just so bizarre seeing him try to carry this off. To think that somebody this cold and calculating, but also stupid, has never had any run in with the law in his life whatsoever, I find incredibly unusual. But he is a very complex man in a very complex situation. He demonstrates sadness at times for Helen and his deceased wife but at the other times engages in shameless lies, and how stupid does he think everybody else is? That's the real mystery of this crime. Not whodunnit, or why; that's obvious. Ian did it for money. But having been caught out, how can he in good conscience keep pretending with the weight of so much evidence against him, putting the family through a long and disruptive trial, and wasting everybody's time?
The evidence he gave was about an hour long and I don't think I could add to what the scores of press will have reported on the detail of what he said. Judge Bright at the end said that he was half way through his evidence, so from that I can only assume that he will not be taking the stand after tomorrow has concluded, but maybe I misunderstood. Ah well! We shall see what he has to say tomorrow! (If I get in, that is!)
