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

[ZaZara]

It's always the partner, isn't it?'

“The pressure is on for you to do the right thing.
“Next week, what’s going to happen to you after this is all over?
“The 12 of you randomly selected to come to this court each day and to form this jury?
“You’re going to be going back to your everyday lives, and people will be asking you what you have been up to for seven or eight weeks.
“It’s always the partner, isn’t it? The one who gives the impassioned plea to the press, organising searches, pleading with the missing person to come home.
“It’s always them isn’t it? It’s always the last person to claim to have seen her alive.
“You might say ‘well we all think that, who else could it be?’
“You might say ‘The Joe and Nick story, interesting, but how can we prove it’s true?’
“It isn’t for Mr Stewart to have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, to make us sure.
“You might say there are a number of highly speculative theories on the prosecution’s part.
“Even when the logic of their own case crumbled in front of our very eyes.
We were told not to decide the case on speculation, but on actual evidence.”

BBM


I must have missed the crumble .... where was that?

 

[Tiny]

“Even when the logic of their own case crumbled in front of our very eyes."

Eh?

Clutching at straws abundantly full of holes?!

 

[Alyce]

He did not need any more money'

“The only reason the Crown canvassed in front of you, because there’s nothing else, is money.
“That’s complete nonsense too. In cash terms, Stewart had more liquid assets than Helen Bailey.
“He had £163,000 in his bank accounts. She had £150,000 in her bank account.
“He hadn’t even claimed the still outstanding £43,000 of investments remaining from his wife Diane.
“He wasn’t poor, short of funds, he did not need any more money.
“He received £2,000 a month net pay, from his pension and work.
“The reality is it didn’t matter if his income continued or not, because together the couple could happily live on her income, from her novels, for the rest of their days, together.”


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-case-12612181


sorry but what a load of guff. So he had £13K more in his accounts than Helen did.
And she had £5K per month in royalties to match his £2K in benefits
And 3 properties and investments
Try harder Mr SRF

 

[Cherwell]

Isn't it up to the judge to instruct the jury? :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

Yes, surely he's out of order there.

 

[LozDa]

Is it rude to LOL at the defence?

 

[Cherwell]

“He hadn’t even claimed the still outstanding £43,000 of investments remaining from his wife Diane."

Says who?

Is it wise to keep mentioning Diane?

 

[cottonweaver]

“The reality is it didn’t matter if his income continued or not, because together the couple could happily live on her income, from her novels, for the rest of their days, together.”

not a good close to that paragraph on IS and her money

 

[Alyce]

So he has completely contradicted himself here

IS had more money - but then it would be ok if he didnt have any, because he could live off Helen's


The reality is it didn’t matter if his income continued or not, because together the couple could happily live on her income, from her novels, for the rest of their days, together.”


eta Snap CW

 

[Tiny]

I still don't understand how he could get£2k per month when he hadn't worked since 1998 as per the Times?

 

[Wilkco]

Yes, surely he's out of order there.

Maybe during the pause when there were no tweets the Judge was informing him of this.

 

[Cherwell]

And it's unconvincing to say "The only reason the Crown canvassed in front of you, because there’s nothing else, is money."
Money is one of the strongest and commonest motives for crime. Always has been, always will be.

 

[ZaZara]

He did not need any more money'

“The only reason the Crown canvassed in front of you, because there’s nothing else, is money.
“That’s complete nonsense too. In cash terms, Stewart had more liquid assets than Helen Bailey.
“He had £163,000 in his bank accounts. She had £150,000 in her bank account.
“He hadn’t even claimed the still outstanding £43,000 of investments remaining from his wife Diane.
“He wasn’t poor, short of funds, he did not need any more money.
“He received £2,000 a month net pay, from his pension and work.
“The reality is it didn’t matter if his income continued or not, because together the couple could happily live on her income, from her novels, for the rest of their days, together.”


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-case-12612181

BBM


This is odd. Has it been suggested anywhere that IS income might stop or be stopped in the (near) future?

If that is so, it would be one helluva motive IMHO.

 

[Cherwell]

Maybe during the pause when there were no tweets the Judge was informing him of this.

Good point! Hopefully Michelle is in court and will be able to fill us in later.

 

[cottonweaver]

And it's unconvincing to say "The only reason the Crown canvassed in front of you, because there’s nothing else, is money."
Money is one of the strongest and commonest motives for crime. Always has been, always will be.

and unconvincing to jury for him to leave out the Broadstairs and GHead assets as well as rest of her estate.

 

[Alyce]

He hadn’t even claimed the still outstanding £43,000 of investments remaining from his wife Diane


I wonder if that is because he has it sitting somewhere in an account, gaining interest, and had not told Helen about it.....perhaps she might have suggested he could contribute a bit more to the purchase of Hartwell Lodge if she had known.

 

[Moll]

BBM


This is odd. Has it been suggested anywhere that IS income might stop or be stopped in the (near) future?

If that is so, it would be one helluva motive IMHO.

If they married, for instance? Would that happen?

 

[Alyce]

Kate Bradbrook ‏@katebradbrook 2m2 minutes ago

#helenbailey Defence closing speech begins. Tells jury if they have any doubts on evidence they must acquit Ian Stewart

#helenbailey Defence: It isn't for Ian Stewart to prove anything. Refers to prosecution's "highly speculative theories

 

[Alyce]

The standing order for £4,000 was never spent by Stewart
“The prosecution say it was Stewart that changed the standing order. Is that really what someone who just killed his partner would go on and do within an hour or so of killing her? Is that really their case?
“That £4,000, four weeks later, is never spent. Stewart doesn’t draw out the money, it’s not spent at all.”


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-case-12612181



mmm, but he conveniently does not add that the £4,000 was going in every month, and amounted to £12,000 by the time IS was arrested ...

 

[Alyce]

Kate Bradbrook ‏@katebradbrook 2m2 minutes ago

#helenbailey Defence say jury must answer why, how, where, when & who. IS of "good character" & pros case "complete nonsense

 

[pinklilies]

Deleted