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

[Moll]

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.

But it was a very different case in so many ways, to judge from the info Neteditor has given. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation, didn't construct multiple scenarios wasting time and money and causing additional grief (though he did pretend innocence initially), and above all it wasn't premeditated. (Posted before I saw Neteditor's post just now.)

Although I had rather a shock as to the comprehension of the British public when I served on a jury many years ago, I am hopeful this one will return a unanimous guilty verdict because of the facts and I think the judge will give clear direction on the 'reasonable doubt' question, i.e. you can't just say aliens might have done it.

That said, as you say, it's unpredictable.

 

[ColourPurple]

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’s disappearance, there were ‘a lot’ of police officers searching the house and garage etc, together with police dogs.

“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.”

It is so important to know when he saw that note. IF it was written by IS to tell Helen he was at Broadstairs then JS could not have seen it before the 16th April when IS actually went to Broadstairs. (Ok I'd stretch to late 15th if he wrote it the night before) But in the days before then, the 11th,12th,13th,14th the Broadstairs trip didn't exist for him to be able to write about it in anote. If he saw it before the 15th/16th, say on the 12th ,before IS was going to Broadstairs then it clearly wasn't a note telling Helen he was in Broadstairs.The only other alternative is that it was his attempt to forge a note from Helen.

 

[Alyce]

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.

Oh I do hope so, that would be perfect

 

[Interested Bystander]

I am reposting the link to WS Acronyms. Many of you who read the standard WS web pages will have found my post confusing. This is because I view the pages newest first whereas standard format is oldest first so the link does not take you directly there. I have corrected this and the following link should be fine. I have also changed it on my original post.

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

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

Good points. I don't think Trimmer made enough about the fact he'd been prescribed it twice before and when trimmer did ask if he'd had it before IS skirted round it by replying "I'd had sleeping pills before" But again,maybeTrimmer is going to refer back to it at the end. And ye smaybe for IS that would open up a whole other can of worms. We know he was prescribed it at some point after his wife's death but he'd also been prescribed it some time before his wife's death and we don't know why. And yes we had all the build up to all the fits his wife had had and he kind of left it for us to join the dots that she must have just died from annother fit.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

Excellent summary.

 

[DollyDiamond]

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.

I totally agree. The last thing I want to see from Mr Trimmer is something as crude as browbeating or bullying IS. But I would like to see the kind of very precise and direct questioning that puts him on the back foot and keeps him there. For my money we haven't seen much of that yet. I am encouraged that some are happy with his approach to date and feel its part of a bigger strategy. I hope next week Mr Trimmer's cross examination will be so brilliant, we are unanimous in concluding he has hung IS out to dry!

 

[Moll]

Excellent summary.

Plus, as Cherwell reminded us, the evidence of the cadaver dog alerting in the house.

 

[neteditor]

Very OT

I once watched a trial in which the defence's position was that another man, very similar in appearance with an identical car, was the actual culprit. The defence QC tore the "other man" to shreds without raising his voice or using any sort of intimidating tone. In fact, he got the "other man" to admit to an indictable offence on the stand! The Judge then said "Mr ... don't you think you should now be reading this witness his rights." Yes, the defendant was found not guilty. Reasonable doubt in full swing and one of the finest examples of advocacy I've ever witnessed.

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

I think it's the other way round as he has her signing off as "love you more" on the imaginary note. would be interesting to see if the note JS saw was signed by BB or LB though wouldnt it.

 

[cottonweaver]

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’s disappearance, there were ‘a lot’ of police officers searching the house and garage etc, together with police dogs.

“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.”

Yes, it's v frustrating. I checked his testimony and it didn't yield any answers. So I'll just have to fall back on a lack of reporting detail.


ETA - Just seen your later post " 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" - well spotted.

 

[Tortoise]

I think it's the other way round as he has her signing off as "love you more" on the imaginary note. would be interesting to see if the note JS saw was signed by BB or LB though wouldnt it.

I don't think it was in the Cambridge News trial blog, but I distinctly remember reading a tweet or a report saying one of the sons had photographed the note they found.

 

[cottonweaver]

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.

Oh me too. Good to see which way the wind is blowing, metaphorically speaking .

 

[ColourPurple]

I don't think it was in the Cambridge News trial blog, but I distinctly remember reading a tweet or a report saying one of the sons had photographed the note they found.

Oh I haven't read that at all.Be good if they have.

 

[Joely 123]

Buy the bikini book. Money will go to the beneficiary of Helen's estate, presumably her brother John, as she had no kids. I've already bought about five copies of the book and given most of them away!

That's a lovely idea Lit Up - good thinking.

 

[cottonweaver]

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.

RSBM. It would be great if his omission is due to this fear and a weakness he was feeling. Any chink in his armour is good as he is so tricksy in his answers to Trimmer. One example of many : I loathe the way he attributes his mis-deeds to Helen, deleting of search history now becomes her action.

“You knew perfectly well the prosecution were alleging you had poisoned her.”
Stewart: “Yes”
Trimmer: “Why did these facts not appear in your defence case statement?
Stewart: “They just don’t, I didn’t put it all together. My defence had nothing to do with that zopiclone.

Back to the late Zop evidence - is it cause he hasn't finessed it fully? He pre-planned to pretend it was an omission and blame it on his legal team when pressed?
Or was it almost too much to deliver the Nick & Joe fable simultaneously with the HB took my Zops and so it felt like Ott overkill to him, delivering both these new twists all at once in December?
Plus as an innocent man, he's not meant to know how NickJoe have done it and Cary can't be precise on COD nor on time of death?

:snowflake: Snowing heavily here now - anyone else got snow where they are?:snowflake:

 

[Cherwell]

I totally agree. The last thing I want to see from Mr Trimmer is something as crude as browbeating or bullying IS. But I would like to see the kind of very precise and direct questioning that puts him on the back foot and keeps him there. For my money we haven't seen much of that yet. I am encouraged that some are happy with his approach to date and feel its part of a bigger strategy. I hope next week Mr Trimmer's cross examination will be so brilliant, we are unanimous in concluding he has hung IS out to dry!

I don't think keeping IS "on the back foot" would be the best strategy. Giving him more rope to hang himself will be more productive. Trimmer is giving him space to make mistakes.

 

[icemaiden65]

I don't think keeping IS "on the back foot" would be the best strategy. Giving him more rope to hang himself will be more productive. Trimmer is giving him space to make mistakes.

Crumbs, it's like a game of chess!

 

[cottonweaver]

NetEditor,
If you're still here , did your old Beeb BF give you any extra snippets, that you can actually say aloud on the thread?

 

[DollyDiamond]

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.

Indeed you can't always predict a jury (I was disappointed at the two Not Guilty verdicts in the Rolf Harris sex abuse trial last week). However, Michelle's superbly written summary of IS' performance and persona on the stand reassures me. She said his general demeanour and mannerisms were as unappealing as the lies that poured from his mouth and unlikely to endear him to the jury. Interesting isn't it, that there is no apparent hint of whatever positive qualities he had that he so successfully charmed Helen with? As with so many things in life, timing played a huge part in his successful 'wooing' of her. He sneaked into her affections over email when she was raw with grief in the immediate aftermath of her bereavement. Had she first met IS at a cocktail party or the like, a year or more after being widowed, I doubt he'd have impressed her at all.