GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I've just listened to Trimmer's "The Attraction of Wealth" (which has been mentioned by other WebSleuthers )whilst doing some emailing and note updating. If I was paying attention, he reminds his audience that whoever loves money never has enough-nothing new, but such a picture of IS.

what great synchronicity is that! wonder if it is addictive, never had that thing for money myself - a lottery windfall would be great but I don't play so little chance of suddenly becoming a multi-millionaire.
 
Cherwell
OT but I can't resist...my background is originally in English and linguistics so I am trained to describe, observe but not prescribe - usage is all-important, etc. However, natural pedantry plus other work in publishing and radio causes me to be rather prescriptive at heart and the pronoun issue is a bugbear, as you say. I loathe 'myself' where 'me' is intended - it reminds me of 'your goodself' and 'the lady wife', somehow! I also hate 'I' where 'me' is really needed, as in ' they gave it to my friend and I'.

But this usage of IS's, the colloquial 'me' where 'I' should be used, wouldn't bug me as long as it was in an off the cuff, colloquial situation. (I'm sure I once heard Lady Antonia Fraser use it in a chatty interview!) 'Her and her friend' is worse, for some reason. And I don't think this was in a very colloquial situation - it was an oral statement, wasn't it? All the same, if there were signs of warmth and life in his descriptions I wouldn't obsess about the pronouns.
 
True, but grammatical standards have plummeted in recent years. And almost everyone seems to misuse the reflexive pronoun nowadays:
"Myself and my friend went shopping" :gaah:

They wouldn't say "Myself went shopping", they would say "I went shopping" so why is it so hard to say "My friend and I went shopping"?

This bugs me enormously because it is now so prevalent that people genuinely think it's correct :banghead:

Agreed, Cherwell, it is extremely annoying! (Especially when you try to correct the grammar and it is claimed that you're the one who has it wrong, because the majority use becomes 'the norm'...)
 
Alyce I think it unlikely that the parents came round on two occasions when Helen slept through it.

I think it more likely that the parents came round on Monday 4th, as Eileen recalls, because the incident would have been fresh in her mind when police first talked to her.

I also think IS called the solicitors on Friday 8th to cancel Helen's 2:30 appointment for her, because she hadn't expected to fall asleep and miss it, so hadn't had the foresight to cancel it before sleeping.

The solicitors evidence was confusing but I think once again it's down to reporting unfortunately. TaraC seems to get dates wrong all the time, possibly due to speed of evidence. What I did manage to get from it was that there was an initial appointment on Tuesday 5th which Helen attended, a follow up appointment booked for Friday 8th 2:30, cancelled at some point, and re-booked for Monday pm. Quite why someone called at 9am on Monday morning from home landline isn't clear. Perhaps Helen thought she'd better phone them to confirm because IS had made the call on Friday, or perhaps IS called them from bedroom (if there is an extension upstairs) without Helen knowing, to find out if he could attend on Helen's behalf because she was still unwell.

Strangely though there is a pause in Helen's iPad searches at 9:04am, which is the exact time the call was made to solicitors from the landline.

I think IS has got the dates wrong for parents visit and Helen being asleep.
 
Just to add the times that Helen's phone was inactive that week

Monday 4th 12:31pm - 4:25pm
Friday 8th 10:55am - 2:59pm (text and call received during that time not responded to)
 
Oh god, myself had better stop posting, in case I get me grammar wrong. You're making me nervous.. :D
 
If IS made the call from the landline at 9:04, coinciding with Helen's pause in iPad searching, it could have been a time she went out to the garden to attend to Boris, or been in the bathroom herself. There's another thought.
 
Just to add the times that Helen's phone was inactive that week

Monday 4th 12:31pm - 4:25pm
Friday 8th 10:55am - 2:59pm (text and call received during that time not responded to)

Both periods are as near as d*mmit to four hours. Coincidence? Or was Helen pole axed by the Zopicline?
 
Both periods are as near as d*mmit to four hours. Coincidence? Or was Helen pole axed by the Zopicline?

I am convinced that Eileen has not made a mistake with her time or date.

She said she spoke to Helen at 1pm and Helen had fallen asleep straight after her breakfast and after a good night's sleep. That makes it extremely unlikely that Helen fell asleep in the afternoon and related this to her mum on waking up at 4:25pm.

It seems therefore that Helen went back to sleep again after speaking to her mum, for another 4 hours. Either that or she went out to get some fresh air as her mum suggested.
 
Alyce I think it unlikely that the parents came round on two occasions when Helen slept through it.

I think it more likely that the parents came round on Monday 4th, as Eileen recalls, because the incident would have been fresh in her mind when police first talked to her.

I also think IS called the solicitors on Friday 8th to cancel Helen's 2:30 appointment for her, because she hadn't expected to fall asleep and miss it, so hadn't had the foresight to cancel it before sleeping.

The solicitors evidence was confusing but I think once again it's down to reporting unfortunately. TaraC seems to get dates wrong all the time, possibly due to speed of evidence. What I did manage to get from it was that there was an initial appointment on Tuesday 5th which Helen attended, a follow up appointment booked for Friday 8th 2:30, cancelled at some point, and re-booked for Monday pm. Quite why someone called at 9am on Monday morning from home landline isn't clear. Perhaps Helen thought she'd better phone them to confirm because IS had made the call on Friday, or perhaps IS called them from bedroom (if there is an extension upstairs) without Helen knowing, to find out if he could attend on Helen's behalf because she was still unwell.

Strangely though there is a pause in Helen's iPad searches at 9:04am, which is the exact time the call was made to solicitors from the landline.

I think IS has got the dates wrong for parents visit and Helen being asleep.


I agree. I think it is a bit too much of a coincidence for there to have been 2 visits by IS parents and Helen sleeping for five hours both times.
The date of Monday April 4 sounds like the correct one, with Helen speaking to her mother on that day, after she woke up. .

The Monday April 4 date also fits with something else I have thought of.

We know that Helen told her neighbour, on April 5, that IS had got the all clear. We also know this was the day Helen and IS went for lunch to celebrate. However, I believe that IS got the all clear before this date. Probably the end of the week prior, so around March 31. This would be 12 or so days after his operation and, allowing for Easter in between, is I think a reasonable turn around time for results.

So quite possibly, IS , now with his all clear, was planning the murder for the next available date - Monday April 4 and it was only his parents unexpected visit which stopped him.

After that....
Tuesday Helen went to the Solicitors - and then for the celebration lunch
Wednesday is the cleaner's day.
Thursday might have worked as IS had a Surgery appointment but as he was still not driving at that point, he needed Helen to take him there.
Friday I think was a definite attempt with Helen being asleep and cancelling the solicitors - but for whatever reason, it didnt work.
So next opportunity Monday April 11.
 
Michelle, you've stated the above perfectly. Courtrooms are not like those portrayed on TV.

Russell Flint was very low key but his hands were tied. First of all he would have taken instructions from IS. Later, a huge part of the prosecution's evidence would have been handed over to the defence. From this he would have formed the view that his client was guilty and I believe he would have advised him to plead guilty. Years can be deducted from a sentence if an early plea is made. He can't assist IS in any way to lie or mislead the court and he can't prevent him getting in the box and lying his head off, which of course is exactly what he's doing.

Trimmer on the other hand has no need for courtroom theatrics. He has what he needs to get a guilty verdict and every time IS opens his mouth he makes his situation so much worse. When closing argument takes place, all the strands will be tied together to form an iron rope.

Everyone, and that includes me, would have loved high drama, but to those who feel a bit let down or disappointed, all I can say is this - I don't believe there's one person on this thread who believes IS is innocent. Isn't that why we're here ... to see that justice is done, and it will be.

I believe he's going to get a very hefty sentence and, hopefully, spend the rest of his miserable life in prison.

I thought it was high drama :blushing:
I'm not disappointed in the least.
:yesss:
 
I agree. I think it is a bit too much of a coincidence for there to have been 2 visits by IS parents and Helen sleeping for five hours both times.
The date of Monday April 4 sounds like the correct one, with Helen speaking to her mother on that day, after she woke up. .

The Monday April 4 date also fits with something else I have thought of.

We know that Helen told her neighbour, on April 5, that IS had got the all clear. We also know this was the day Helen and IS went for lunch to celebrate. However, I believe that IS got the all clear before this date. Probably the end of the week prior, so around March 31. This would be 12 or so days after his operation and, allowing for Easter in between, is I think a reasonable turn around time for results.

So quite possibly, IS , now with his all clear, was planning the murder for the next available date - Monday April 4 and it was only his parents unexpected visit which stopped him.

After that....
Tuesday Helen went to the Solicitors - and then for the celebration lunch
Wednesday is the cleaner's day.
Thursday might have worked as IS had a Surgery appointment but as he was still not driving at that point, he needed Helen to take him there.
Friday I think was a definite attempt with Helen being asleep and cancelling the solicitors - but for whatever reason, it didnt work.
So next opportunity Monday April 11.

They went for the celebratory meal April 5th after hearing IS got the all clear that morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Agreed, Cherwell, it is extremely annoying! (Especially when you try to correct the grammar and it is claimed that you're the one who has it wrong, because the majority use becomes 'the norm'...)

Language is a living, evolving creature that bends with the wind of popularity. Unfortunately all these grammatical twinges that make the likes of us edumacated folks cringe will become the correct form of English because so many people misuse them it will indeed become the norm. As someone who is fascinated by the etymology and development of language I should probably embrace this evolution but I am the biggest pedant walking.

That said, me, myself and I don't check everything I bash out into my social media offerings and I'm now feeling nervous too :D
 
Even though it's snowing here right now, it's still time for some folk to do a bit of spring cleaning and clearing out ...

just sayin .......:wink::wink:
 
They went for the celebratory meal April 5th after hearing IS got the all clear that morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah ha, so he did only get the news on that day....that scuppers my thought then
 
Even though it's snowing here right now, it's still time for some folk to do a bit of spring cleaning and clearing out ...

just sayin .......:wink::wink:

What are you suggesting Alyce, that we all b ugger off? :D
 
[h=2]A disappearance should be reported immediately if the person is felt to be at risk or unsafe.[/h]If you are concerned that someone you know is missing, we would encourage you to make the police your first point of contact. They can be informed either by calling 101 or by visiting your local police station. If the missing person is a child, or thought to be at serious risk of harm call 999. If in doubt always seek advice from the police.

http://www.missingpeople.org.uk/how-we-can-help/families-and-friends/reporting-a-missing-person.html

I just thought I'd post this because IS used 101 to report Helen missing and not 999.

It's the first clue we have that he did not want police to consider the matter an emergency.

I'm in the middle of listening to a video of someone who is an expert on Statement Analysis, talking about what to expect on 999 calls, and more importantly what not to expect, to use as a tool for weeding out those with guilty knowledge.

I'll post up the link later for others who might be interested in this. So far I've heard him say not to expect a greeting for the call handler, not to hear the caller apologising or talking about him/herself. That's as far as I've got.

IS started his call by saying Hello there, and then apologised during the call 18 times.
 
They went for the celebratory meal April 5th after hearing IS got the all clear that morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hunkerdown, just wondering if you can also confirm that IS did indeed have two operations/admissions for investigations?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
1,446
Total visitors
1,568

Forum statistics

Threads
599,579
Messages
18,097,057
Members
230,887
Latest member
DeeDee214
Back
Top