GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #8

[hunkerdown]

They're taking a break until 12.15...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LozDa]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12606434

11:47
[h=3]Break[/h]There will now be a mid-morning break until 12.15pm.

 

[neteditor]

He didn't turn up and the judge told defence to make sure he turned up today and that he (the judge) does have powers to compel people to give evidence in court even if they don't want to and that he (judge again) was prepared to invoke those powers.

Ooooh that is very strong indeed, he must have just not bothered? Reluctant witness?

 

[jenspired]

So....what do you think......guilty or not guilty?

This is the first trial I've followed in such detail and via WebSleuths. I originally thought it could never match the Perry Mason TV shows I loved watching in my youth but it surpassed my expectations.

He is guilty as sure as there's a y in the day.

As Helen retweeted:

Oh what a tangled web we weave

 

[Alyce]

Wonder why they didn't have Mr Farmer on yesterday? There was plenty of time. At this rate the jury will be out before Monday. I can't think that the defence can spin out its closing argument for very long.

I thought perhaps they ran ahead of themselves and had space but as Mr F had to come up from Broadstairs he was probably booked in for today and they couldnt then get him to be available yesterday afternoon


eta just seen the real reason from T41s post - a reluctant witness then

 

[ColourPurple]

Word on the street is the police computer expert is going to be recalled.

oH

I do hope he's searched the ipad history for zopiclone searches

 

[Duchy]

He didn't turn up and the judge told defence to make sure he turned up today and that he (the judge) does have powers to compel people to give evidence in court even if they don't want to and that he (judge again) was prepared to invoke those powers.

Can't blame him for not turning up, I bet he feels a right twit.

 

[Florrie]

Ooooh that is very strong indeed, he must have just not bothered? Reluctant witness?

Perhaps has heard all the crap that IS has come out with and maybe decided he couldn't provide any defence to support it. I know they are not supposed to follow the cases but don't see how it can be avoided these days. He was no defence to IS anyway....just says he glimpsed Helen and thinks it was June but it could equally have been March.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BlueMosaic]

Gerrie Nel: I put it to you this defence has been comedic from the start.

Indeed, and the comedy effects cumulative

 

[neteditor]

You're a :star:

keep em coming NetEd

Will be limited info today, he's not going to be in court again until nearer the end.

 

[Tortoise]

He didn't turn up and the judge told defence to make sure he turned up today and that he (the judge) does have powers to compel people to give evidence in court even if they don't want to and that he (judge again) was prepared to invoke those powers.

I can see what his dilemma was. And why he forgot his glasses.

 

[Squamous]

Yes, he probably thought "it might not have been her, I can't remember when it was and she might not have liked coffee after all". I partly wonder if the dates slipped because the chap had no desire to offer any info in IS' defence.

 

[flightpath]

Fascinating case. I hope the jury are all intelligent enough to cut through the myriad diversionary tactics of the abduction fantasy. But I'm sorry to say you can never tell which way it will go despite what we think. Some jurors may just think there is enough reasonable doubt .... The case I was a juror on there was a fellow juror who halfway through the deliberation asked the rest of us "what does this mean?" . It was in fact the name of one of the three Defendants! English wasn't her first language but I was shocked. And some jurors take a back seat and simply go with the majority whilst others refuse to acknowledge facts. And there will be one or two who try to take control. Just my halfpenny Of experience! I am hoping IS gets 30 years myself!

 

[LozDa]

Fascinating case. I hope the jury are all intelligent enough to cut through the myriad diversionary tactics of the abduction fantasy. But I'm sorry to say you can never tell which way it will go despite what we think. Some jurors may just think there is enough reasonable doubt .... The case I was a juror on there was a fellow juror who halfway through the deliberation asked the rest of us "what does this mean?" . It was in fact the name of one of the three Defendants! English wasn't her first language but I was shocked. And some jurors take a back seat and simply go with the majority whilst others refuse to acknowledge facts. And there will be one or two who try to take control. Just my halfpenny Of experience! I am hoping IS gets 30 years myself!

:scared:

 

[Florrie]

I will be amazed if they find him not guilty. Surely nobody could believe the crap he has come out with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

oH

I do hope he's searched the ipad history for zopiclone searches

:clap:

 

[Tortoise]

It came to me last night why I think IS pounced when he did.

By drugging Helen and making her anxious and worried that she had something wrong with her, leaving Boris on the beach, not recognising her own hands etc, he had been building up the story that it would not be so surprising that she had left home, perhaps wandering in a confused state.

Of course the timing had to be after she had instructed the solicitor to sell the flat too, and before he had purchased the pink diamonds and been obligated to pay for a cancelled wedding venue.

 

[LozDa]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12606434

12:10
[h=3]Break extended[/h]The break has been extended until 1.30pm.

 

[LozDa]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12606434

12:10
Break extended

The break has been extended until 1.30pm.

In that case, I'm off to make some lunch and have the wee I've been holding in for an hour.

TMI? I never can tell.

:laughing:

 

[Moll]

Fascinating case. I hope the jury are all intelligent enough to cut through the myriad diversionary tactics of the abduction fantasy. But I'm sorry to say you can never tell which way it will go despite what we think. Some jurors may just think there is enough reasonable doubt .... The case I was a juror on there was a fellow juror who halfway through the deliberation asked the rest of us "what does this mean?" . It was in fact the name of one of the three Defendants! English wasn't her first language but I was shocked. And some jurors take a back seat and simply go with the majority whilst others refuse to acknowledge facts. And there will be one or two who try to take control. Just my halfpenny Of experience! I am hoping IS gets 30 years myself!

My experience was similar to yours, flightpath. I was one of the ones who try to take control! And there were some startling episodes such as one juror asking whether we should find one of the witnesses guilty or not guilty. But none of the cases I was in on, were as long or as dramatically obvious as this one, and I expect the judge's direction to help them. Plus we were all encouraged by their intelligent question on the finances.

Just got back from the dentist, fearing I might have missed a crucial witness...nevertheless there's some really useful comment here, thank you all. I am agog to hear what the police computer expert is, or may be, being recalled for.