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

[Squamous]

I agree on Trimmer. He's just getting started. And it's far more effective to cover the details and point out the impossibility of it being anyone else than to give IS lots of opportunities to deny and lie, we know he is a capable liar and if jurors are given the chance to like him I think that's IS' best chance of escaping conviction (best but minute!!). As someone already pointed out, Trimmer has got IS to admit that either he or NiJo put Helen in that pit which is pretty damning in itself and good at narrowing any doubt. Trimmer has to pick the holes in the story and unwind the rope for IS to hang himself with. The judge will no doubt put together some very clear and incisive sentencing remarks which lay out the full horror of IS' deeds.

 

[Florrie]

Loving the term "NiJo" for the gangsters haha. Really gives a flavour of how ridiculous they are as a story.

Thing is that IS has spun such a web of deceit with so many details that Trimmer will be able to tie him up in knots next week. I doubt IS will be able ti remember all the details he has given in his "tale" and Trimmer likely WILL.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[jenspired]

Please could one of the more established sleuths here summarise what you think are the main key pieces of evidence that will convict IS?

Also, forgive my ignorance, what is RSBM?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

Loving the term "NiJo" for the gangsters haha. Really gives a flavour of how ridiculous they are as a story.

Thing is that IS has spun such a web of deceit with so many details that Trimmer will be able to tie him up in knots next week. I doubt IS will be able ti remember all the details he has given in his "tale" and Trimmer likely WILL.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Me too

 

[Alyce]

Just a quick note re the cess pit, manhole cover and why the police didnt find it earlier.

From memory ( I will check back later and find the evidence )

OS evidence says there was nothing parked over the manhole cover on Friday April 15.
Bear in mind OS could be talking about Friday morning when he noted this, at the time he was departing to work.

On that Friday evening - about 7pm - the police make their first visit to IS to get some details about Helen's disappearance. There is no mention of them checking the garage at that time, and very likely the doors would be closed so no interior views available to them.

On Sunday April 17 the police make another visit and during the visit they advise IS/Jamie to move Helen's jeep from the driveway out of sight.
Evidence then tells us that the BMW was moved out of the garage and the Jeep put into the place where the BMW had been - ie, over the cess pit cover.

Therefore, at some time between OSs sighting of the cess pit cover on Friday April 15, and the evening of Sunday April 17, when the Jeep was put into the garage, the BMW must have been put into the garage and parked over the cess pit cover.

My guess is that as soon as the police departed on the Friday, IS then moved the BMW into the garage and parked over the cess pit cover - just in case the police wanted to inspect the garage during their next visit.

Although further searches were conducted on April 19 and April 22 it was not until the search of July 11 that the police moved all the cars out of the garage and saw the cess pit cover.

 

[Milenalee]

Seems prophetic now, from near the end of Helen's blog:

"Never the most sociable of people, when I moved out of London in August 2013, I isolated myself even further from my old life. Partly this was because it felt such an effort to get on a train, but also because I felt I’d made a terrible mistake leaving the love of my life (London) and I couldn’t bear to visit and then leave again as if I was now a tourist. At Kings Cross, I’d look at the 390 bus which would take me towards Highgate and past Renée’s house, and feel bereft that I wasn’t getting on it. I still do. I should never have left London, but that’s for another time."

In an earlier post she apologizes for not answering emails and uses this photo:

http://planetgrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/knees.jpg

Does he bear some resemblance to Woody the Greedy Gray Haired Widower?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'm tickled by the "tiny phone" the prisoner passed him to allow the mystery voice to offer him condolences and politely say sorry that Helen had been unnecessarily murdered. Presumably it was tiny due to being smuggled into jail on a drone or something, but seriously?!

Given that all this claptrap was apparently new to the prosecution, can they now call prison officers or similar as new witnesses?

was so small he couldn't tell the brand

You may be surprised to learn that drones have actually been used, but there's another method that's commonly used:

"Tiny mobile phones are being smuggled to prisoners hidden inside Mars Bars, a chilling new documentary has revealed. Channel 4’s ‘The Secret Life of Prisons’ also details how drugs are flown in by drones, concealed in trainers or sprayed onto children’s drawings.

In the show, the woman is seen receiving a text message which reads “Can you get subutex [a heroin substitute]? I need a visitor to bring through a rigid Mars Bar.” She explains this means a Mars Bar stuffed with a phone.

She said: “You can buy these for between £25, £26 and in the prisons depending what jail, they’ll go from anything from £200 to £800 – I know for a fact someone got offered £1,000 for one.

“It’s all plastic, it’s got the vibrate bit took out so there’s no metal for the metal detectors to go off. It’s small, nice and neat to put away – up their bums. I’m a pro I can probably do 20 in ten minutes.”

‘PrincessStar’ has smuggled phones, cannabis, crack cocaine, heroin and more into prisons – and she’s never been caught".

It's enough to put you off Mars Bars for life.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21531...s-are-smuggled-into-prisons-inside-mars-bars/

 

[Alyce]

A few pieces of evidence re the ( non existent ) note.

IS says he told Oliver about the note. Oliver does not say anything about a note.
IS does not say he told Jamie about the note. Jamie mentions a note


IS Evidence
On April 12, I said to Oliver that Helen had gone to Broadstairs and had left a note saying she needed some space.
“It just came out, I don’t know why I said it, it’s just not true.
“It was a stupid thing to say, and I had to keep saying it.
“There hadn’t been any sort of note. Once I’d said this, I had to keep saying it, it just happened like that.
“I don’t know why I first said it.



Oliver's evidence
On Tuesday, April 12, Oliver said he went directly to work at 7.15am and didn’t see anyone before he left.
“On the Tuesday night, I came in from work and had something arranged with my girlfriend.
“I was rushing getting ready and dad said he wanted to have a quick chat with me.
“He was in the study, dad said Helen had gone for a break to Broadstairs and said that’s where she was. “I said ‘fair enough’ and that’s about it. I didn’t feel that was anything unusual, that’s her holiday home and that’s her space.


Jamie's evidence
When I’d seen they weren’t there, I saw my dad and asked if Helen and Boris had gone for a walk.
“He said Helen had gone to Broadstairs to get some time to herself, and left a note to say not to contact her.”

 

[Florrie]

Please could one of the more established sleuths here summarise what you think are the main key pieces of evidence that will convict IS?

Also, forgive my ignorance, what is RSBM?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Am sure one of the more experienced sleuths will be able to do this for you.

For me the big one is that Helen and Boris were found on the property.

That their bodies were found in a cesspit which IS says he didn't know about when it has been established that he absolutely DID.

Then there is the change in the SO to transfer £6000 a month into HIS account and which he denies doing. Fragments of computer files show that it came from his computer.

The reluctance of IS to report Helen missing...he only did so when pushed to do so by her brother.

The removal of the router from Broadstairs when it became apparent that Helen's phone had registered there....when it was supposed to be missing.

His reluctance to engage with police over Helen's disappearance. And his obstructive and avoidant behaviours.

His comments under police interview (before Helen's body was found) were also odd as he repeatedly mentioned stuff about being a suspect...bearing in mind that at this point (as far as he knew), the police were not investigating a crime but a missing person.

I think he is toast personally...it's just a question of how long he will go away for.

Edited to add

The discovery of Zopiclone in Helen's hair when she didn't like taking medication suggests it was being slipped into her food in some way or exchanged with her herbal medication.

That Helen could not have been knowingly taking this due to her web searches about being very tired and also her periods of amnesia (leaving her dog on the beach) and also her odd sleeping patterns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Squamous]

Please could one of the more established sleuths here summarise what you think are the main key pieces of evidence that will convict IS?

Also, forgive my ignorance, what is RSBM?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I'm a fairly new sleuth but the prosecution laid out their case on the first day of the trial - that Helen had been drugged with sleeping pills for months before her death and was worried by feeling sleepy and forgetful (undermining IS' version that she took them herself, something he didn't mention til the toxicology report came back), that IS was the only person to see Helen on the day she died/disappeared, that her body was found in their home, that within hours of her death IS was dumping items at the tip (and later returned to check they'd gone), that within hours someone used IS' computer to try and set up a standing order from Helen's account to the joint account and after failing twice heftily amended an existing one, that IS had Helen's phone (which he admits) and lied to police about this, that Boris was killed too which only fits with trying to make the "gone missing" story add up, that IS tried to use power of attorney to push several things through within weeks of Helen going missing, IS claiming that she'd left a note which served to divert the police very extensively. The only defence IS has made to this was that of two people kidnapping Helen and returning to put her in the cess pit. Two people, never seen by or mentioned to anyone else at all, including the two men who lived with Helen and IS throughout this time period.

 

[Cherwell]

And the cadaver dog's evidence that a dead body had been in the house.

 

[Moll]

And the cadaver dog's evidence that a dead body had been in the house.

Oh yes! We mustn't forget that vital piece of evidence, and the judge certainly won't. From all we have been told, it is not to be explained away as anything but evidence of a recent dead body being there... and IS has not thought up a far-fetched NiJo-related explanation either, has he?

I look forward to Mr Trimmer pressing IS on this evidence.

 

[Cherwell]

I don't see any lack of sharpness or power in the cross-examination, Dolly. This isn't the closing speech. It is far more powerful to let IS fall into polite little traps than to be thunderous in condemnation at this stage.

I agree on Trimmer. He's just getting started. And it's far more effective to cover the details and point out the impossibility of it being anyone else than to give IS lots of opportunities to deny and lie, we know he is a capable liar and if jurors are given the chance to like him I think that's IS' best chance of escaping conviction (best but minute!!). As someone already pointed out, Trimmer has got IS to admit that either he or NiJo put Helen in that pit which is pretty damning in itself and good at narrowing any doubt. Trimmer has to pick the holes in the story and unwind the rope for IS to hang himself with. The judge will no doubt put together some very clear and incisive sentencing remarks which lay out the full horror of IS' deeds.

Exactly so. It's important to remember that the job of the prosecution counsel is to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty. No more, no less.

He's not there to browbeat and bully the defendant. If he did that relentlessly, there is a risk that members of the jury might start to feel sympathy for the accused.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm puzzled about why he didn't include anything in his defence statement about the zopiclone. The first time he ever said that Helen had taken these from him and taken them herself was in the witness box.

So I need to think this through a bit.

He was given the pathologist's report in October, 6 weeks or so before he filed his defence statement.

Had he not even told his defence team? I think they would have had to file an amended additional statement if he had, even if it was after the trial had started.

Let's see if we can come up with a reason for this. As Strimmer (brilliant name joely!) said to him - 'you knew the crown's case was that you had poisoned her'.

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]Trimmer: “Until this point the prosecution have not heard that zopiclone was taken from you and Helen researched it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Stewart: “Yes”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Trimmer: “So we should expect to find a search for this on Helen’s iPad?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Stewart: “No, Helen regularly deleted history. This is something she always did.”[/FONT]

 

[cottonweaver]

A few pieces of evidence re the ( non existent ) note.

IS says he told Oliver about the note. Oliver does not say anything about a note.
IS does not say he told Jamie about the note. Jamie mentions a note


IS Evidence
On April 12, I said to Oliver that Helen had gone to Broadstairs and had left a note saying she needed some space.
“It just came out, I don’t know why I said it, it’s just not true.
“It was a stupid thing to say, and I had to keep saying it.
“There hadn’t been any sort of note. Once I’d said this, I had to keep saying it, it just happened like that.
“I don’t know why I first said it.



Oliver's evidence
On Tuesday, April 12, Oliver said he went directly to work at 7.15am and didn’t see anyone before he left.
“On the Tuesday night, I came in from work and had something arranged with my girlfriend.
“I was rushing getting ready and dad said he wanted to have a quick chat with me.
“He was in the study, dad said Helen had gone for a break to Broadstairs and said that’s where she was. “I said ‘fair enough’ and that’s about it. I didn’t feel that was anything unusual, that’s her holiday home and that’s her space.


Jamie's evidence
When I’d seen they weren’t there, I saw my dad and asked if Helen and Boris had gone for a walk.
“He said Helen had gone to Broadstairs to get some time to herself, and left a note to say not to contact her.”

This is the aspect that I referred to in my last post which makes it all the more problematic

"“Dad had been saying he wanted to go down to Broadstairs and look for Helen himself, just in case there was something someone else might not have noticed. A note at the house said ‘Gone to Broadstairs. Ring me. Love you xx’ I thought that was Helen’s scrawling writing, it turns out this was a note Dad had written in case Helen came back while he was in Broadstairs.”"

JS

I still hold that this was in fact a practice note by IS, attempting Helen's writing. This is why JS confuses the writing - it does not look like his father's, which he knows equally well. ( Naturally it also implies that JS saw that note.)
The underlined part is also significant. Who told JS that that was not THE note, but his father's. Did IS correct that and if so when.
All this fine detail is important but we didn't get that coverage in the reporting or detail in the questioning of the witness.

 

[neteditor]

Life, and he got out after 12 years? Was there a minimum sentence imposed before he would even be considered for parole?

I didn't cover the trial as that was held in Birmingham, outside of my work region. I've done a bit of googling but it's not easy to come up with accurate trial coverage from the pre-internet days.

If I remember correctly, after Rachel's body was found Tanner had the good sense to realise he was banged to rights and didn't bother to maintain the farce as IS has done. I believe he admitted to killing her but denied it was murder and claimed it was a crime of passion.

Rachel had said she was breaking up with him as she was seeing someone else and he flipped and lost it and strangled her etc etc.

He was sentence to life with a minimum term of 12 years. He was a model prisoner and paroled at the first opportunity.

Sentencing guidelines have changed since then, I'm not sure what he'd be looking at today but I think 15 is the minimum now.

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/6573282.Killer_leaves_prison/

 

[Moll]

[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: “Until this point the prosecution have not heard that zopiclone was taken from you and Helen researched it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: “Yes”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: “So we should expect to find a search for this on Helen’s iPad?[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: “No, Helen regularly deleted history. This is something she always did.”[/FONT]

Can this last statement by IS be refuted? Other searches have been found.

 

[cottonweaver]

I'm puzzled about why he didn't include anything in his defence statement about the zopiclone. The first time he ever said that Helen had taken these from him and taken them herself was in the witness box.

So I need to think this through a bit.

He was given the pathologist's report in October, 6 weeks or so before he filed his defence statement.

Had he not even told his defence team? I think they would have had to file an amended additional statement if he had, even if it was after the trial had started.

Let's see if we can come up with a reason for this. As Strimmer (brilliant name joely!) said to him - 'you knew the crown's case was that you had poisoned her'.

Could be simple: To wrong foot the Prosecution by not giving this info in advance, it's central to their case so if legally he can get away with this last minute info , he will.

Trimmer: “You saw that pathology report by Dr Carey on October 27 which stated zopiclone was found in Helen’s body - shortly after that you were given a document that indicated Dr Carey’s conclusions.”

Stewart: “I don’t know the timing.”
Trimmer: “There really are only two alternatives. Either she did it herself or you did it to her.”
Stewart: “Yes, but only one of them is true”
Trimmer: “The first time the option you’d chosen has come to the prosecution of the court is when you give evidence?”
Stewart: “Yes”
Trimmer: “You know she was suffering from the effects of zopiclone in the weeks prior to her death.”
Stewart: “No”

 

[neteditor]

I can't quite make it out- are you saying that he's been recently active on the website he was "building" for Helen?

It's common practice to use a snippet of code to automatically update the date on copyright notices. WordPress sites normally use the php code [FONT=&quot]<?php echo date("Y"); ?>[/FONT]