GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #9

[wolfcub]

Don't know why anyone would be having a go at Flint here. He's only doing his job, and doing it very well given the extremely poor quality of the material he has to work on. If he happens to be so good that the jury find his client not guilty then clearly the jury are a bunch of *$%£wits. We can surely rely on the judge to balance the fact that the evidence is clearly in the prosecution's favour.

The one worry I have is the lack of any real evidence that a murder has occurred - it's just very suspicious when a body is disposed of in this way.

Except that I'm not sure he is actually doing his job well: surely the defence can't be both versions: either that he accidentally caused her death and he dumped her in the cesspit to avoid manslaughter charge OR that Nick and Joe really did exist and the defence is based on this storyline, But he can't have it both ways!

 

[ColourPurple]

Don't know why anyone would be having a go at Flint here. He's only doing his job, and doing it very well given the extremely poor quality of the material he has to work on. If he happens to be so good that the jury find his client not guilty then clearly the jury are a bunch of *$%£wits. We can surely rely on the judge to balance the fact that the evidence is clearly in the prosecution's favour.

The one worry I have is the lack of any real evidence that a murder has occurred - it's just very suspicious when a body is disposed of in this way.

He should be able to do his job without saying things that just arent true, like stating that he would have been financially better off if he had killed her when they were married, even for a day.The insurance policy Helen put in place to cover inheritance tax means that just isn't true. So he's telling the jury something that has been proven to be false. I don't think I've seen that in any of the other cases I've followed but maybe the judges summing up corrected them so I've just blanked it out.

 

[Alyce]

cause he's a cheap skate and a dolt?

Yep...same reason he went on holiday when his partner / fiancee ... was missing....cos he couldnt get the money back

 

[LozDa]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279

[FONT=&quot]14:23[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Broadstairs evidence only given to defence at start of trial[/h]“Mr Farmer said there was no doubt in her mind it was Helen he had seen. “He told his wife. He repeated it to The Sun newspaper. He said it again to police. “A sighting in Broadstairs? The very place Joe was said to have met John Sinfield in?

“He said this sighting was mid April to the beginning of May. “So what happened to this material the prosecution didn’t want to rely on, because it didn’t fit their case?

“Was it given to the defence as it should have been? No, not until the first day of the trial.”
[/FONT]

 

[cottonweaver]

Just got back to the trial after a busy day expecting to dive into the summing up only to find this pompous old t**t still spouting *advertiser censored*! Lord, give me strength!

My feckin boring alert went off 5 minutes in and he's still at!

It's a brave strategy he's embarked on but my oh my I'd be very surprised if he hasn't alienated the jury with this overkill. Even if IS was innocent I'd send him down after listening to this annoying git droning on. It's worse than listening to the incessant faux whining of Barry Roux in the Pistorious trial![/QUOTE]

BIB Nothing can top Barry Roux in my mind. Zero ethics maximum weaseling

 

[LozDa]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279

[FONT=&quot]14:24[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Defence - 'pretty rich' evidence was not revealed[/h]You might think it pretty rich, a complaint of things not mentioned by Mr Stewart, when the prosecution didn’t reveal the existence of this crucial and vital piece of evidence of that compelling sighting until the very first day of this trial.”
[/FONT]

 

[ColourPurple]

I do think the prosecution would have been better off not trying to narrow down the time of day that Helen was killed. They could have just said it had to be done before the boys were home. I know there's less proof of the fraud if they do that but the murder charge is more important.

 

[cottonweaver]

and now the pot calls the kettle black

So what happened to this material the prosecution didn’t want to rely on, because it didn’t fit their case?

“Was it given to the defence as it should have been? No, not until the first day of the trial.”

 

[Alyce]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279

[FONT="]14:23[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#141414][FONT="][h=3]Broadstairs evidence only given to defence at start of trial[/h]“Mr Farmer said there was no doubt in her mind it was Helen he had seen. “He told his wife. He repeated it to The Sun newspaper. He said it again to police. “A sighting in Broadstairs? The very place Joe was said to have met John Sinfield in?

“He said this sighting was mid April to the beginning of May. “So what happened to this material the prosecution didn’t want to rely on, because it didn’t fit their case?

“Was it given to the defence as it should have been? No, not until the first day of the trial.”
[/FONT]

Well, that's it then. Stop the trial now. If that bastion of truth and reliability was advised, then we can rest assured all is well.

 

[LozDa]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279

14:27
Helen Bailey seen in car after death date

“If you think Mr Farmer’s observation of Helen in Broadstairs is correct, which we say undoubtedly is true, it drives yet another massive wedge into the speculative case of the prosecution, because they just cannot be right.

“Helen Bailey cannot have died on April 11 if she’s in a Range R have diedover in Broadstairs in mid to late April.”

 

[Alyce]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279

[FONT="]14:24[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#141414][FONT="][h=3]Defence - 'pretty rich' evidence was not revealed[/h]You might think it pretty rich, a complaint of things not mentioned by Mr Stewart, when the prosecution didn’t reveal the existence of this crucial and vital piece of evidence of that compelling sighting until the very first day of this trial.”
[/FONT]

Ooh, that is so not a good move.

 

[LozDa]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279

14:27
Helen Bailey seen in car after death date

“If you think Mr Farmer’s observation of Helen in Broadstairs is correct, which we say undoubtedly is true, it drives yet another massive wedge into the speculative case of the prosecution, because they just cannot be right.

“Helen Bailey cannot have died on April 11 if she’s in a Range R have diedover in Broadstairs in mid to late April.”

lols

 

[LozDa]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279

14:28
Sightings of author 'not fantasy'

“The sighting can’t have been in March, as the prosecution were desperate for Mr Farmer to say, because the couple hadn’t been to Broadstairs since January 2016.

“The sightings of Helen are not fantasy. It’s not informed guesswork. It’s actual fact, reality. “These witnesses are not wrong in what they say about Helen still being alive.”

 

[TheRisenBishop]

BIB Nothing can top Barry Roux in my mind. Zero ethics maximum weaseling

You and me both CW! He went way beyond what's required of an advocate.

 

[Alyce]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279

14:28
Sightings of author 'not fantasy'

“The sighting can’t have been in March, as the prosecution were desperate for Mr Farmer to say, because the couple hadn’t been to Broadstairs since January 2016.

“The sightings of Helen are not fantasy. It’s not informed guesswork. It’s actual fact, reality. “These witnesses are not wrong in what they say about Helen still being alive.”

Except for March 2016, when they were in Broadstairs and Helen left Boris on the beach...this is in your own client's evidence Mr Flint

 

[DollyDiamond]

How much leeway does the Judge have when he winds up the trial? This is only the second trial I have followed so the processes are relatively new to me, especially as my first dip into trials was for the Oscar Pistorius debacle where, even without a jury, the judge completely messed up. I do expect better here in the UK but would be interested as to how the Judge (who I am absolutely sure, like us, thinks IS is guilty) can lead the jury to the right conclusion. I cannot imagine he can rubbish SRF entirely so any guesses from you very clued up bunch as to what he can say that will ensure the verdict goes the right way? Can they be told to disregard parts of SRF's claims?

In the OP case we had a poll which showed, IIRC, 92 per cent guilty of murder, and yet Roux the Defending barrister, managed to distort the truth IMO and the judge fell for it. I know it is different here but when a judge gets bamboozled by a good barrister what are the chances a jury will be too? Have many of you followed such an in depth and at times factually incorrect closing speech before?

The Judge ('Milady') in the OP trail was an utter joke and frankly I was never convinced she hadn't been 'got at'. I trust the Judge in this case will be entirely impartial - but I sincerely hope he will correct some of the inaccuracies and downright untruths in Russell Flint's summing up. RF even misquoted Helen's own words from her book!

 

[Cherwell]

“If you think Mr Farmer’s observation of Helen in Broadstairs is correct, which we say undoubtedly is true, it drives yet another massive wedge into the speculative case of the prosecution, because they just cannot be right."

LOL. This was Mr Magoo who failed to turn up in court and had to be fetched the next day, isn't it?

 

[cottonweaver]

right this has to be the end of his closing now FGS

ETA _ no it isn't , we're onto speculations about the dead JS's business dealings now.

 

[LozDa]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279

[FONT=&quot]14:34[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]'Issues' over Helen's husband's death[/h]“John Sinfield’s business is not quite as presented. You might think that somewhere hidden away is an issue still rumbling along that relates to his untimely death in 2011.

“The issues with David Jensen, the lawyers involved - you might think that something doesn’t add up. “Whatever the issues were, whatever it all amounts to, it’s not something that can be dismissed by you as quickly as the Crown would have you do so. “In Helen’s book there’s a lot written about John Sinfield’s secretiveness, how he was awake at night with stress.

“Two years later in 2010 he was still stressed, there were difficult times in their relationship.

“Helen said ‘John Sinfield looked drained - he didn’t know whether all the hassle with the company was worth it’. “Helen wrote

‘It seems strange I can know someone for a quarter of a century and know so little about such a big part of their previous life’.”
[/FONT]

 

[Cherwell]

No, let him go on. He's doing a great job for the prosecution.