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

[LozDa]

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

[FONT=&amp]14:34[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]'Issues' over Helen's husband's death

“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]

This is absolutely disgusting. The rest of it is him doing his job. This bit is just disgusting.

 

[LozDa]

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

[FONT=&quot]14:36[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Names in husband's diaries[/h]“It is clear that this matter hadn’t died alongside John Sinfield and it wasn’t over, there’s an issue somewhere. “And low and behold there in John Sinfield’s diaries are references to the two names that Stewart had claimed have been some sort of business associates of Mr Sinfield, and those who were responsible for Helen’s abduction.”
[/FONT]

 

[scandinavian girl]

I know that it is prosecution that must provide evidence but now I strongly think that defence should have some basic proof to what they are saying are the truth.....I am confused and thinking this is just weird.

 

[peter010101]

“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.”

What's the reasoning here? "These witnesses are not wrong ... " What is supposed to establish that they're not wrong? The fact that they said it? Or something else - if so, what?

 

[cottonweaver]

here we go, the book extracts, no doubt helpfully supplied by IS the other day. Tsk!

“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’.

 

[LozDa]

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

[FONT=&quot]14:38[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Stewart in 'terrible nightmare' - jury told[/h]“There was only a first name basis. It would be nice to provide more information about these men to police and say to them ‘here you go, arrest them’.

“And let Stewart step away from this terrible nightmare that he’s in. “Others are guilty, not him, and yet he’s the one who is being prosecuted.

“But why didn’t he mention Joe and Nick to police until late last year? “The Crown says this is because he’s guilty of murder but does that really follow? Could there not be another reason for him not having mentioned before then?

“Because he was beaten, assaulted, attacked, threatened, told to act naturally otherwise she was at risk. “He acted as he did to protect her, and then to protect his children, the most natural thing in the world.”
[/FONT]

 

[cottonweaver]

What's the reasoning here? "These witnesses are not wrong ... " What is supposed to establish that they're not wrong? The fact that they said it? Or something else - if so, what?

He wants to create reasonable doubt that the Pros have not proved their case. The Pros gave a "time window" for the murder. The sightings are outside of that window.

 

[KarenUK]

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.

It's a fair enough point, everyone deserves a defence and a fair trial - but it does make my blood boil that Helen and JSs names have been dragged through the mud with all these allegations of Joe and Nick and shady business dealings - although that is all on Stewart's head.

 

[cottonweaver]

Exactly Karenuk - Flint is under instruction from his client ultimately. I can really imagine IS swotting up for more book extracts in his cell this week! This is IS's biggest and last "entertainment" before he slinks off into total obscurity for the rest of his days.

 

[LozDa]

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

[FONT=&quot]14:42[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Wouldn't Stewart have come up with a better story is planning murder?[/h]“If Stewart was going to murder Helen, wouldn’t he have worked out firstly a better place to put her body, and secondly a better explanation of her disappearance to police?

“During all that time ,over all those months, was he ‘not thinking through all his story’, or did he know exactly what had happened as to Helen’s abduction, but was too terrified to tell the police?”
[/FONT]

 

[Tortoise]

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.”

Right, back to Enya..............

Anyone else want some?

[video=youtube;5yRgiXh2fP4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yRgiXh2fP4[/video]

 

[Tortoise]

When that's finished, there's this..

[video=youtube;aL8kZ-iVk90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL8kZ-iVk90[/video]

 

[LozDa]

Right, back to Enya..............

Anyone else want some?

[video=youtube;5yRgiXh2fP4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yRgiXh2fP4[/video]

You could probably also get through all 18 albums of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells by the time this is over.

 

[SiSi]

Were the diary entries relating to "Nick&Joe" ever entered/produced as actual evidence items for the jury to mull over?

 

[LozDa]

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

[FONT=&amp]14:44[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Something 'deep and spiritual' in Stewart

“Beware those opinions of Stewart expressed in hindsight of those difficult few months, after he was arrested, from those healthcare professionals, and even DC Daines and DC Lockwood.

“Yes Stewart might present a little oddly, but that is due to his illness myasthenia gravis.

“There must be something far more deep and spiritual in him for such a woman like Helen to have got past his physical frailness and quirks, and to love him as much as she did.”

[/FONT]

 

[cottonweaver]

this has put the tin hat on it all.

Flint has gone too far now:

“There must be something far more deep and spiritual in him for such a woman like Helen to have got past his physical frailness and quirks,

 

[peter010101]

He wants to create reasonable doubt that the Pros have not proved their case. The Pros gave a "time window" for the murder. The sightings are outside of that window.

That's the reasoning behind why he chooses to refer to these sightings.
I meant what's the reasoning to support his assertion that they are "undoubtedly true"?

 

[Alyce]

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

[FONT="]14:38[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#141414][FONT="][h=3]Stewart in 'terrible nightmare' - jury told[/h]“There was only a first name basis. It would be nice to provide more information about these men to police and say to them ‘here you go, arrest them’.

“And let Stewart step away from this terrible nightmare that he’s in. “Others are guilty, not him, and yet he’s the one who is being prosecuted.

“But why didn’t he mention Joe and Nick to police until late last year? “The Crown says this is because he’s guilty of murder but does that really follow? Could there not be another reason for him not having mentioned before then?

“Because he was beaten, assaulted, attacked, threatened, told to act naturally otherwise she was at risk. “He acted as he did to protect her, and then to protect his children, the most natural thing in the world.”
[/FONT]

But despite all this, he managed to get up off the floor, nip off to a bowls match and then enjoy a Chinese takeaway - with not a scratch to be seen.

 

[LozDa]

this has put the tin hat on it all.

Flint has gone too far now:

“There must be something far more deep and spiritual in him for such a woman like Helen to have got past his physical frailness and quirks"

uke:

 

[Cherwell]

“There must be something far more deep and spiritual in him for such a woman like Helen to have got past his physical frailness and quirks, and to love him as much as she did.”

YOU ****ING *advertiser censored*