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

[ColourPurple]

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'.

I reckon he heard the GP mention in court that it would have been prescribed with caution because of his MG and thought "OOh I think I'll use that info to say that Helen found that info out too and took them off me and said she'd take them herself". Being a liar he doesn't realise that it's not something you would completely forget about until you're in the witness box.

 

[neteditor]

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.

Spot on... all counsel dance a very fine line between keeping the jury on side and alienating them

 

[Moll]

There's a lot on the CPS website that deals with disclosure, such as:
[FONT=&quot]15.45. Pursuant to section 11 of the Act, the prosecutor should remember that the court and any other party may make such comment as appears appropriate and the court or the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper in deciding whether the accused is guilty of the offence where the accused is required to provide a defence statement and[/FONT]

• fails to do so
• does so out of time
• sets out inconsistent defences in the defence statement or
• at trial
• puts forward a defence not mentioned in or different from that in the defence statement
• relies on a matter which should have been mentioned in the defence statement but was not
• adduces alibi evidence not having previously given particulars in the defence statement or
• calls an alibi witness of whom the required details have not been supplied.

[FONT=&quot]15.46. Leave of the court is necessary before comment can be made where the accused seeks to rely on a matter which should have been mentioned in the defence statement but was not and that matter is a point of law (whether on admissibility, abuse of process, an authority or otherwise).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I fear my two OU law courses some time ago do not equip me to see exactly where IS's conduct will allow adverse inferences to be drawn, but I'm sure Mr Trimmer will make good use of it.[/FONT]

 

[mbmc]

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]

Phew, thanks I was seriously thinking he has access to the internet and is able to read this thread [emoji33]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

Definitely. Why would he need to leave her a note when he had her phone and email, was at the house most of the time anyway and... back to reality... knew she was lying dead in the cess pit in the garage?

 

[cottonweaver]

[

I fear my two OU law courses some time ago do not equip me to see exactly where IS's conduct will allow adverse inferences to be drawn, but I'm sure Mr Trimmer will make good use of it.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

snipped

Trimmer definitely seems to be doing that, emphasising all the contradictory statements that he also has made throughout the police investigation and I'd expect a big section in the Judge's comments on the late defence from IS.

When Trimmer closes I'd expect he'll compare IS's conduct on perverting course of justice with IS's late defence.
IS A crafty liar from start to finish.

Wasn't this Trimmer's opening gambit? IIRC it was - You are a liar!

 

[cottonweaver]

Definitely. Why would he need to leave her a note when he had her phone and email, was at the house most of the time anyway and... back to reality... knew she was lying dead in the cess pit in the garage?

And isn't it annoying that we never found out where it was spotted. Where did JS see this?
I can't remember now if IS gave it's location. I mean where he'd put it after supposedly leaving it out for HB in case she had returned.
In my head I suspected that this "practice note " might have been with various papers and the cops found it, as they did the passport. ( However, if the cops HAD found it surely they would have retained it as evidence - it appears to have been an attempt at forgery really. )

Maybe another poster can remember if we got that detail?

 

[Tortoise]

All snippets from cross-examination relevant to zopiclone:-
------

[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;The body of Helen doesn&#8217;t seen to have suffered any external injury.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know about that.&#8221;
---
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;There came a time you started giving her Zopiclone.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;No&#8221;.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;You said Helen took the zopiclone tablets from you.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;She took them on two occasions herself. She told me that.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;Once, she took the tablets from you, and she said &#8216;I might be taking some of those&#8217;. Then you&#8217;ve just told us now that she told you she had taken zopiclone when you were in hospital?[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Yes&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;If she had zopiclone in her system that&#8217;s because she took it herself.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Yes&#8221;.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;Those facts don&#8217;t feature in your defence case statement.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;It didn&#8217;t come in my mind. It came back to me later. It came back to me when I was first given the pathologist report to read.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;You knew you were being accused of poisoning Helen, smothering her, then putting her in the cesspit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] &#8220;By the date your defence case had been served in December you had the majority of documents in the prosecution&#8217;s case.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] &#8220;You knew perfectly well the prosecution were alleging you had poisoned her.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Yes&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;Why did these facts not appear in your defence case statement?[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;They just don&#8217;t, I didn&#8217;t put it all together. My defence had nothing to do with that zopiclone.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;They are lies&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;No&#8221;.

---

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;You were prescribed zopiclone, why?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Because I wasn&#8217;t sleeping well.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;You had had zopiclone before?[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;I said I had a sleeping drug before.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;If I have your evidence correct, you went back home with your zopiclone and Helen got to hear about it.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Yes, I showed it to her&#8221;.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;She went to her computer and googled it?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Yes, she showed me from her iPad websites to say you shouldn&#8217;t take zopiclone with your health condition.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;Do you remember which site this was?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;No.&#8221;
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;We should expect to find that search on Helen&#8217;s iPad?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Yes&#8221;.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;Until this point the prosecution have not heard that zopiclone was taken from you and Helen researched it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Yes&#8221;.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;So we should expect to find a search for this on Helen&#8217;s iPad?[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;No, Helen regularly deleted history. This is something she always did.&#8221;

-------[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;You went to the doctor and Helen has taken these tablets off you, you&#8217;re still not sleeping. Did you go to your doctors and ask for something else?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;No there was lots going on. I slept a bit better.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;She didn&#8217;t take those tablets off you, you kept them and you used them.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;No&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;Unless she took them from you there isn&#8217;t any other method of getting that zopiclone in her system is there?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;No. She took them herself.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;Helen taking the pills herself is crucial to your defence?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;I didn&#8217;t regard it as crucial, that&#8217;s just what happened.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;You saw that pathology report by Dr Carey on October 27 which stated zopiclone was found in Helen&#8217;s body - shortly after that you were given a document that indicated Dr Carey&#8217;s conclusions.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know the timing.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;There really are only two alternatives. Either she did it herself or you did it to her.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Yes, but only one of them is true&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;The first time the option you&#8217;d chosen has come to the prosecution of the court is when you give evidence?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Yes&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;You know she was suffering from the effects of zopiclone in the weeks prior to her death.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;No&#8221;

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;On Friday, April 8, Helen did a series of searches. &#8216;Falling asleep in the afternoon&#8217; &#8216;Can&#8217;t stop falling asleep&#8217; &#8216;I&#8217;m so tired falling asleep at work&#8217;
Stewart: &#8220;She showed me some of these searches.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;The fact she&#8217;d made those was important to you. Did it stick in your mind?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;Not at all.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Trimmer: &#8220;Did that concern you she was searching for the cause of what was making her sleep?&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stewart: &#8220;No.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]

 

[cottonweaver]

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.

And yet it's interesting to remember the posts here on the eve of IS's cross.
expecting "fireworks", "blood sport", "mincemeat", "meltdown" etc .

 

[ColourPurple]

And isn't it annoying that we never found out where it was spotted. Where did JS see this?
I can't remember now if IS gave it's location.
In my head I suspected that this "practice note " might have been with various papers and the cops found it, as they did the passport.

Maybe another poster can remember if we got that detail?

I think the only person who's mentioned actually seeing any note was JS but yes I'd have liked to have heard more. When did JS see the note? Where was it? Did IS know he'd seen the note? Did they discuss it? When did he find out the note was from IS to Helen rather than vice versa?

 

[icemaiden65]

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/

Thank you so much for this. What was worrying me is the fact that my Aunt's murderer got life, with 22 years minimum (he pleaded guilty and also there was a consideration of his age taken into account - 20 at the time). I just couldn't even think about him getting out before doing the full 22 years so that's a relief!

 

[Interested Bystander]

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

Respectfully Snipped By Me (used when a post which is being replied to has been snipped to the point in question to save space/reading time)

Here is a link to a list of many but not all acronyms used on WS - see Post 1

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?193885-Websleuths-Lingo

Apologies if the original link did not work. It is because I view the posts with newest first which changes the page numbers. I think the updated link should work for those of you that view newest pages last.

I think there is one that I know I use that is not there and that is:

TIC Tongue In Cheek

 

[ColourPurple]

Trimmer: &#8220;Until this point the prosecution have not heard that zopiclone was taken from you and Helen researched it?
Stewart: &#8220;Yes&#8221;.
Trimmer: &#8220;So we should expect to find a search for this on Helen&#8217;s iPad?
Stewart: &#8220;No, Helen regularly deleted history. This is something she always did.&#8221;

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

I'm wondering if he's going to use that info at the end. Trimmer has narrowed his question down to her ipad and rather than say it was on another computer IS appears to have accepted that it was on her ipad but argued that she deleted her history. I wonder if Trimmer will later say "You say that the reason we didn't find searches for zopicolione on Helen's ipad was that she always deleted her history... well we were able to retrieve that history and although there were searches about unexplained tiredness there were no searches for zopiclone or MG"

Just seen that IS says she actually showed him on her ipad. Silly move IS

Stewart: &#8220;Yes, she showed me from her iPad websites to say you shouldn&#8217;t take zopiclone with your health condition.

 

[Alyce]

And isn't it annoying that we never found out where it was spotted. Where did JS see this?
I can't remember now if IS gave it's location. I mean where he'd put it after supposedly leaving it out for HB in case she had returned.
In my head I suspected that this "practice note " might have been with various papers and the cops found it, as they did the passport. ( However, if the cops HAD found it surely they would have retained it as evidence - it appears to have been an attempt at forgery really. )

Maybe another poster can remember if we got that detail?

This is from Jamie's evidence - he just says there was a note found at the house. Doesnt say who found it or when.
Hopefully he was asked about this during his time in the witness box.

Jamie said in the week of April 11, his dad was becoming very forgetful, and was forgetting things such as Pin numbers. He wanted to make a note of things like that in case he did forget them.

He said during the first search of the house, after Helen&#8217;s disappearance, there were &#8216;a lot&#8217; of police officers searching the house and garage etc, together with police dogs.

&#8220;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 &#8216;Gone to Broadstairs. Ring me. Love you xx&#8217; I thought that was Helen&#8217;s scrawling writing, it turns out this was a note Dad had written in case Helen came back while he was in Broadstairs.&#8221;

 

[perfectvirgo]

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

I know, apparently he was given a life sentence but released after 12 years. He then returned to his native New Zealand. The marginal 10-2 verdict was worrying too as it shows how you can't predict a jury.

 

[DollyDiamond]

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&#8217;d made a terrible mistake leaving the love of my life (London) and I couldn&#8217;t bear to visit and then leave again as if I was now a tourist. At Kings Cross, I&#8217;d look at the 390 bus which would take me towards Highgate and past Renée&#8217;s house, and feel bereft that I wasn&#8217;t getting on it. I still do. I should never have left London, but that&#8217;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

I think acknowledging to herself and other people that leaving Highgate/London was '...a terrible mistake' was the closest Helen came to admitting the relationship that prompted that move was the REAL mistake. I feel certain she had lots of private misgivings about the man but she kept them private and did not even fully admit them to herself. For to do so would have raised the scary possibility of the relationship ending, and her having to start another new life alone, so soon after the trauma of JS' sudden death. Oh if only she had decided to get out of her engagement the way she decided to get out of London!


I also fantasise about IS' receiving a terminal cancer diagnosis, and a devastated Helen losing him and being 'widowed' again. How heartbroken she would have been, and how she would have ranted against the injustice of losing two partners young. She would have written some beautiful pieces about this latest, shattering loss, totally unaware that his death had literally saved her life.

 

[Cherwell]

And yet it's interesting to remember the posts here on the eve of IS's cross.
expecting "fireworks", "blood sport", "mincemeat", "meltdown" etc .

Metaphorical! We were avidly waiting for IS's ludicrous defence to be demolished and so far I'm not disappointed.
I'll be surprised if he doesn't explode or break down at some point.

 

[Tortoise]

I reckon he heard the GP mention in court that it would have been prescribed with caution because of his MG and thought "OOh I think I'll use that info to say that Helen found that info out too and took them off me and said she'd take them herself". Being a liar he doesn't realise that it's not something you would completely forget about until you're in the witness box.

Something is niggling me about it, and I'm not sure yet what. I don't think it's as simple as that.

I think possibly he was scared stiff by the drugging element. It makes me think of his evidence in chief, where he didn't say a word about how his wife died. Where you would expect huge story building he clams up completely and swiftly moves on to something else.

I think it is to do with him having been prescribed it before, and IF HE TOOK THE TABLETS BEFORE, having to have known it hadn't caused him any problems with his MG. I also think he got zopiclone from various GPs, and it seems very suspect that not one of them noticed he shouldn't be prescribed it, UNLESS to deceive them into prescribing it again he had pointed out 'I've had it before with no ill effects.'

When he says it apparently causes a bitter taste he is digging himself into a huge hole.

I'm becoming convinced he didn't deal with this poisoning in his defence statement because of the potential for all this prior history to come out, and he didn't know how to deal with all of those little problems without this potentially blowing up into a double murder enquiry.

The poisoning is his MO. It is how he managed to kill without leaving a mark on Helen's body, and without Helen fighting him. It is central to the case. And he blanks it.

 

[Alyce]

Again, on the subject of the note that IS wrote which he planned to leave out for Helen, in case she came back while he was at Broadstairs.

That sign off Love you xx

This reminded me of something from Becky Watts trial. Those who followed it, do you remember the text messages the police found on Nathan and Shauna's phones and how they said they could not be sure who sent which message. The police were further hampered by Nathan saying that sometimes he and Shauna swopped phones ( something IS has also mentioned in his defence ! )
Anyway, I remember that someone on our Becky threads worked out who had sent what by looking at their sign offs.
I cant remember what they were now, but one of them always signed off *advertiser censored* and the other used xoxo or something along those lines.

Which brings me to ISs note. I was fairly sure that Helen signed off Love you xx and IS signed off Love You More xx

If that was always the case, it would imply that IS was indeed working on a false note from Helen, rather than writing his own note to leave for Helen.

 

[neteditor]

I know, apparently he was given a life sentence but released after 12 years. He then returned to his native New Zealand. The marginal 10-2 verdict was worrying too as it shows how you can't predict a jury.

The 10-2 verdict was because he muddied the waters by admitting to manslaughter but denying murder. And although it's not that long ago really, in those days women were still seen to have contributed to their demise (rape victims who wore short skirts etc etc). We'll never know for sure, but the two jurors may have been men who thought losing the plot and strangling a woman who admitted being unfaithful wasn't such a bad thing to do.

The worst thing about him going back to NZ is there is no obligation to transfer the life license. He's home and free, quite literally.

There's no such issue with IS for sentencing. He has not only denied the offence, he's used two farcical tales to try to avoid detection / prosecution.

If Helen had been found within a fortnight (like Rachel) and IS had put his hands up straight away, we'd be watching a very different trial today.