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

[Squamous]

I can't see him getting off. The case is so strong and he certainly seems suitably self obsessed. I know the court reporting skips lots but I was struck that he only talked about Diane's death in terms "sadly she died" and then was back on to his dull old blah-blah about poor him, left in charge of the boys age 15 and 18. Horrible ages to lose a parent but they weren't exactly babes in arms. And it wasn't like IS was working in a demanding job or anything.

He is ostensibly close to his mum but bringing up her mental health problems from 50+ years ago in open court seems really unkind to me. It's not relevant and it's pretty personal stuff.

 

[neteditor]

I can't see him getting off. The case is so strong and he certainly seems suitably self obsessed. I know the court reporting skips lots but I was struck that he only talked about Diane's death in terms "sadly she died" and then was back on to his dull old blah-blah about poor him, left in charge of the boys age 15 and 18. Horrible ages to lose a parent but they weren't exactly babes in arms. And it wasn't like IS was working in a demanding job or anything.

He is ostensibly close to his mum but bringing up her mental health problems from 50+ years ago in open court seems really unkind to me. It's not relevant and it's pretty personal stuff.

The "left in charge of the boys" thing made me angry. Like men who call looking after their own children "babysitting". No, it's called parenting.

 

[Cherwell]

Oh dear, if IS can prove a strong case for how HB died and came to be in the cesspit - and sheds some more tears - and he and old Flinty are going to have to work hard on that one, make no mistake - I can see him getting off right now.

Of course he can't "prove a strong case".
He has lied and lied and been caught out. The note. Denying knowledge of the septic tank. And much more.
He had motive, means and opportunity - which nobody else did.

The only hope he has is that there are 12 stupid and gullible idiots on the jury, and the chances of that are vanishingly small.

 

[DollyDiamond]

If he can produce zero evidence of the existence of Nick & Joe then surely he is *advertiser censored**ed. He might as well tell my story about Boris' gambling addiction, lol!

 

[Squamous]

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).

 

[DollyDiamond]

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).

That's genius, LOVE it! Coincidentally, I'm watching 'Portrait Artist of the Year' - you're a shoo-in for the next series!

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks to all for today's coverage, comments and humour.
Am doubting now whether IS was in fact, involved in Diane's death if she did suffer from epilepsy - which could easily be verified, so doubt he could be lying

I'm not.

This murder involved the worst kind of deception and callousness imaginable as far as I'm concerned. The cold calculation and planning involved shows me what he is. And his act of drawing attention to his relationship with Diane, her medical history and the circumstances of her death today, shows me that he knows what is on the line with this case.

He is working extremely hard to show his innocence in a crime he hasn't been accused of, and that speaks to me of a desperate need to defend himself. It is not necessary beyond saying my wife died of an existing medical condition, but old motor mouth can't stop himself blabbing on about it.

It's like walking into a room and your child saying I didn't eat the chocolate before you even noticed it was missing.

 

[cottonweaver]

I agree, I knew it wasn't your mistake, CW. It made me pause when I first saw it, and I checked it on the Cambridge News site. As I say, I then even wondered if he said 'my' for 'her'. but perhaps unlikely in this case.

I know you didn't Moll, no worries, at all.

...but you never know with IS - wouldn't put it past him to say he's written a book . He is rather Walter Mitty.
( Maybe he can focus on his thrilling memoirs during his 30 years at his majesty's pleasure?)

.....hold on, a WS member did say, this afternoon, he'd be successful in getting her aged insomniac relative to sleep .......so he could do some charitable work making zzzzzzzzz recordings for this charity :

https://www.sleepsociety.org.uk/

 

[cottonweaver]

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

your 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).

:loveyou:

That tops the lot - I love it. xxxx

 

[neteditor]

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'll be in big trubs when the judge finds this, you've completely trashed the jury's right to anonymity!:jail::jail: :loveyou:

 

[Tortoise]

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).

Hang on, are we sure he can lift his arms up like that?

 

[BlueMosaic]

Might it have been (or including) the Christopher Starrs case?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-manager-dodge-jail-28-000-expenses-scam.html

 

[cottonweaver]

Stuart Trimmer QC

I have got a feeling Trimmer is a bit of a softy and lets people off lightly. Not sure where I read it but I hope he toughens up for IS.

I know what you're saying IB, he does look like a lamb with his wig and his beard but he reckon he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. We'll know soon enough, by tomorrow.
I hope he doesn't let his Christian ethics hinder him in taking gloves off! That would be an awful shame when religious fervour could really fuel his fire.

I s'pose scumbags are ten a penny and it's another day's work for him and I get it that he's not as invested as the 100+ people who visit this forum every day.

( I say he looks like a sheep as I see a lot of them here, some of them are remarkably canny, we have hurdlers and limbo-dancers amongst the flocks, plus the odd one that's learned to barrel-roll over cattle grids to get to their new pastures...)

 

[BlueMosaic]

I expect to see you outside the Old Bailey (the sketchers were there last time I visited). That prison diet is working a treat.

 

[looroll]

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).

Brilliant!!x

 

[neteditor]

Might it have been (or including) the Christopher Starrs case?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-manager-dodge-jail-28-000-expenses-scam.html

That is with Trimmer sitting as a Recorder (part time judge), so not really applicable IMO to how he works as a counsel. He was accused of getting the sentencing law wrong there.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Can I ask my Websleuth friends a couple of quick questions? Firstly, what's this BIB I keep seeing in the comments - I'm a newbie as you know and I've been puzzling over that for ages - OK, I give in!

Secondly - am I mistaken, or did IS claim today that he was accepted to Cambridge University to do a Phd? I find this hard to believe!

It's sickening to hear IS recount the well-worn, sympathy-seeking story of how his wife died tragically. It's exactly the same telling that Helen will have heard and has no doubt been exploited to the max with many, many people.

I fully believe he could have killed his late wife, and that the defence mentioning there was a potential cash claim he didn't make is a huge red herring. Her epilepsy may have been the perfect cover for murder. I hope that will be investigated in future, but as she's been cremated it could be hard to prove. The unbelievable arrogance of this man is easier to understand in the context of him having got away with murder before.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Did we have anyone in court today?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Can I ask my Websleuth friends a couple of quick questions? Firstly, what's this BIB I keep seeing in the comments - I'm a newbie as you know and I've been puzzling over that for ages - OK, I give in!

Secondly - am I mistaken, or did IS claim today that he was accepted to Cambridge University to do a Phd? I find this hard to believe!

It's sickening to hear IS recount the well-worn, sympathy-seeking story of how his wife died tragically. It's exactly the same telling that Helen will have heard and has no doubt been exploited to the max with many, many people.

I fully believe he could have killed his late wife, and that the defence mentioning there was a potential cash claim he didn't make is a huge red herring. Her epilepsy may have been the perfect cover for murder. I hope that will be investigated in future, but as she's been cremated it could be hard to prove. The unbelievable arrogance of this man is easier to understand in the context of him having got away with murder before.

BIB = Bit in Black ie highlighted. Yes he did claim he had been accepted to Cambridge to do a PhD. I think he got a 1st for his first degree. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether it is the truth but I think he said he dropped out in the second year did he not? Or have I lost the plot again!

 

[cottonweaver]

I'm not.

This murder involved the worst kind of deception and callousness imaginable as far as I'm concerned. The cold calculation and planning involved shows me what he is. And his act of drawing attention to his relationship with Diane, her medical history and the circumstances of her death today, shows me that he knows what is on the line with this case.

He is working extremely hard to show his innocence in a crime he hasn't been accused of, and that speaks to me of a desperate need to defend himself. It is not necessary beyond saying my wife died of an existing medical condition, but old motor mouth can't stop himself blabbing on about it.

It's like walking into a room and your child saying I didn't eat the chocolate before you even noticed it was missing.

I must admit I agree that I can't see how he suddenly becomes this "man" without having some form.

so pros and cons
- why would he risk, at this point saying his wife was epileptic, if she wasn't? Surely she would have had med records for those seizures in previous decades, that he would be caught out with.
- he will have seen that Coroner's report, as will the police and maybe the CPS. Is he so confident that he can't be incriminated that he feels free to exploit her suffering today on the stand. ( He does an awful lot of appropriating other's pain for his gain - mum's PND, Diane's caesarean etc .....)
- WS member Powertool who knew him at school didn't seem to remember any signs of eg. "conduct disorder"
- despite the cremation it's likely they would have retained a liver sample which can now be/has been re-tested with new toxicology methods that pick up subtler doping signs

pros
- you can't get to be this cold, crazy and greedy suddenly when you hit 50 ( as Tortoise has said)
- you can very easily go undiagnosed and be on the sociopathic personality disorder spectrum all your life
- I'm not buying that steroids set him on this murderous path , not yet, cause we still don't know how severe his M.gravis was.
- why would his ex relative in-law say that she still felt there was unanswered questions re her death and after a Coroner's report?
- must say that every time he tears up when his wife is mentioned says something else to me but of course I am biased.


ETA - just read Dolly's comment re. the portion of Alyce's estate that he has still not claimed. Someone this aftrenoon mentioned that this sum of c. £40k may be in trust for the sons, as a possible explanation. That could be the case, I really haven't a clue.
( I could be more cynical and venture that , had I done x, y, z but had sufficient for my current expenses, I might not touch some £ for a good while. ??? Just a thought- pure speculation which is probably way off the mark)