Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
I too thought that very meaningful. Surely the jury will read it the same way.
GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #9
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
- Status
I too thought that very meaningful. Surely the jury will read it the same way.
Brilliant summing up......... what else is there to consider after all. Go Judge Bright !!!!!
LozDa
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2016
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 19
Someone on Twitter has said that according to journos present at the trial, the defence has been viewed as amazing.
But I think that's because they're all amazed they've managed to present that defence story without being laughed out of the courtroom.
Hoping.
But I think that's because they're all amazed they've managed to present that defence story without being laughed out of the courtroom.
Hoping.
LozDa
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2016
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 19
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279
[FONT="]15:54[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]Do lies support case against Stewart?[/h]He continues: “The defendant admitted in his evidence that he told lies to his friends, family and others about Helen Bailey’s disappearance.
“The defendant accepts that Helen Bailey had not left him a note, but that he repeated this lie to her brother John, her friends, family and police that she had.
“You’re asked to consider whether the repetition of lies in this way supports the case against him.”
[/FONT]
[FONT="]15:54[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]Do lies support case against Stewart?[/h]He continues: “The defendant admitted in his evidence that he told lies to his friends, family and others about Helen Bailey’s disappearance.
“The defendant accepts that Helen Bailey had not left him a note, but that he repeated this lie to her brother John, her friends, family and police that she had.
“You’re asked to consider whether the repetition of lies in this way supports the case against him.”
[/FONT]
scandinavian girl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2014
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 4,557
if he gets off he will be so confindent in his invinsibility so I fear he will be on the prowl for another victim.
LozDa
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2016
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 19
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279
[FONT="]15:55[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]Stewart felt he needed to continue the lies[/h]Judge Bright continues: “The defendant’s explanation for this lie is that he said he was not thinking straight, because of the threats made by Nick, and after lying once he felt he needed to continue the lies.
“If you think there may be an innocent explanation of his lies then you should take no notice of them.”
[/FONT]
[FONT="]15:55[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]Stewart felt he needed to continue the lies[/h]Judge Bright continues: “The defendant’s explanation for this lie is that he said he was not thinking straight, because of the threats made by Nick, and after lying once he felt he needed to continue the lies.
“If you think there may be an innocent explanation of his lies then you should take no notice of them.”
[/FONT]
LozDa
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2016
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 19
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279
[FONT="]15:58[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]May be good reason for not mentioning facts to the police[/h]He adds: “The defendant now relies on facts he failed to mention when he was arrested by police.
“There may be good reason for him not to mention these facts to police, and you must not hold this against him.
“But you must consider whether these facts are something the defendant concocted while awaiting trial for Helen Bailey’s murder.”
[/FONT]
[FONT="]15:58[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]May be good reason for not mentioning facts to the police[/h]He adds: “The defendant now relies on facts he failed to mention when he was arrested by police.
“There may be good reason for him not to mention these facts to police, and you must not hold this against him.
“But you must consider whether these facts are something the defendant concocted while awaiting trial for Helen Bailey’s murder.”
[/FONT]
TheRisenBishop
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2017
- Messages
- 123
- Reaction score
- 1
Like all barristers he will leave it up to the jury. He merely presents his clients version, however ludicrous. It's up to the jury to decide and he won't lose sleep over it whatever they decide. I've no doubt they will convict.
LozDa
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2016
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 19
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279
[FONT="]16:00[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]Jury reminded that the prosecution must make them sure of guilt[/h]“You must consider the reason the defendant told you for remaining quiet - mainly due to threats to Ms Bailey and his sons from Joe and Nick.
“If he had a good defence and was told by his solicitor not to say anything, that is one thing. But if he stayed silent because he had no real defence to put forward, that is another.
“Do not convict a defendant simply because he made no comment. I must remind you that the burden remains on the prosecution to make you sure the defendant is guilty.”
[/FONT]
[FONT="]16:00[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]Jury reminded that the prosecution must make them sure of guilt[/h]“You must consider the reason the defendant told you for remaining quiet - mainly due to threats to Ms Bailey and his sons from Joe and Nick.
“If he had a good defence and was told by his solicitor not to say anything, that is one thing. But if he stayed silent because he had no real defence to put forward, that is another.
“Do not convict a defendant simply because he made no comment. I must remind you that the burden remains on the prosecution to make you sure the defendant is guilty.”
[/FONT]
jenspired
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 204
So he's basically saying
you must consider these facts are something the defendant concocted while awaiting trial for Helen Baileys murder.
:fence:
LozDa
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2016
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 19
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12617279
[FONT="]16:05[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]Helen Bailey murder trial closes for the day[/h]That’s the end of the case for today. Jurors will meet again at 10am on Monday morning.
Judge Bright’s summing up is expected to conclude on Monday afternoon, when jurors will retire to consider their verdict.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]16:05[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=3]Helen Bailey murder trial closes for the day[/h]That’s the end of the case for today. Jurors will meet again at 10am on Monday morning.
Judge Bright’s summing up is expected to conclude on Monday afternoon, when jurors will retire to consider their verdict.
[/FONT]
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,328
- Reaction score
- 54,897
Thank you again Loz - a sterling job done today, in the face of too much guff ( for me anyway )
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,328
- Reaction score
- 54,897
Defence case begins its closing speech
Defence barrister Simon Russell Flint is now giving his closing speech.
“So what do you think? It’s obvious according to Mr Trimmer, a slam dunk. An obvious decision.
“There’s considerable pressure being heaped upon you to do the right thing.
“This is the awful monstrous man who killed this lovely children’s author, a tragic widow.
“He’s the man who killed the defenseless Boris the dog.
“Do you have the strength of mind and the courage to listen to and analyse all the evidence, and to consider that with an open and unprejudiced mind?
“Are you going to be able to resist the temptation to not engage in speculation or guesswork?
“Not to indulge your own emotions when one considers the body of a lady and a dog in a cesspit?”
“If you have any reasonable doubts, you must find Stewart not guilty of each of the charges.
“You must be brave, and must consider whether you have to courage and strength to do that.”
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.”
What caused this smart, loving, family man aged 55 to suddenly decide to kill Helen Bailey?'
“There are questions that need to be answered.
“These are ‘Why how, where, when and who?
“Why would Stewart want to kill Helen? What motive did he have? What caused him, this smart, loving, family man aged 55 at the time, with no history or background of violence at all - what made him suddenly decide to kill Helen Bailey?
“The reality is that this is one of the hardest if not impossible questions for the Crown to answer, because there is no sensible reason. “What you would want to know before you convicted someone, is the answer to that question.”
There is nothing in Stewart's past or present to suggest this type of violence'
“There’s nothing in Stewart’s past or present hinted at to demonstrate this type of violence or aggression in his life at all.
“What would make him say ‘I know, I think I’ll kill the woman who has made my life so happy, so pleasant, so comfortable’?
“It makes no sense at all. In fact, it’s complete nonsense.”
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.”
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.”
Defence say Helen could have made the failed log-in attempts to the couple's join account
“You heard from witnesses yesterday that said Helen Bailey was still alive on the afternoon of April 11.
“But there is a log in at 2.28pm to Helen’s account using her pin and debit card.
“There were two failed attempts to set up a standing order to the couple’s joint account.
“Rather than risk three failed attempts and possibly a lock out, the pre-existing one was amended, from £600 to £4,000 a month. “Who’s the most likely candidate for having made a computer error? Stewart, the Crown say a computer expert, or Helen Bailey?
“Why having just killed your partner, if it’s Stewart and he’s trying to pretend to be Helen, why would he be so stupid to use his computer to log in to her bank, rather than use hers if she’s dead in the cesspit as the prosecution say?”
On the day he is meant to have killed her he had £22,000 in the joint account'
“We say this was Helen Bailey using Stewart’s computer, because her desk was always cluttered and his laptop had the advantage of being plugged into that large screen.
“He was either upstairs having a rest asleep, or he was asleep in the green chair.
“This nonsense that Helen would have to be logging onto Stewart’s computer sitting on his lap is ridiculous.
“The prosecution are ignoring the physical evidence that the photographs of the house pick out.
“If this man is a computer expert and is going to try to cover his tracks on his computer, surely this expert could have deleted the whole of his internet history so as not to leave any trace of any log in on his computer.
“So Stewart has killed Helen for greed, out of money, and has changed the standing order.
“On April 11, the day he is meant to have killed her, he had £22,000 in the joint account, let alone what is in his account.
“He doesn’t need further monthly transfers in.”
There was no massive expenditure or change to spending patterns after her death'
“Are there sudden massive withdrawals of money from the joint account after Helen’s death? No.
“There is no different pattern of spending, no personal amounts removed, no transfers of money to his account.
“Once the money goes in from Helen’s amended Barclay’s payment on May 9, are there any massive payments? No.
“Only the Arsenal season tickets, which he thought only he could do in her name and using her card for their joint account.
“This was to ensure continuity, and to ensure Helen wouldn’t lose out on those season tickets.
“It’s hardly earth shattering expenditure.”
Their life was more than going well, it was almost idyllic'
“Financial gain is Stewart’s sole motive, say the prosecution, and you may think it’s total rubbish.
“It’s not money, or greed, that you could properly conclude in any way as a motive that Stewart killed Helen Bailey.
“Their life was more than going well, it was almost idyllic, you’ve seen the comfortable warm lovely home they had. “Space for her, space for him, space for Boris, space for the boys, a big swimming pool.
“Perfect for all their needs. He wouldn’t want any of that without Helen Bailey.
“And given the loss he suffered many are not fortunate to find again, the love of a good woman who, on the evidence, more than loved him.
“The Crown say he is a predator, but he is no stalker searching for bereaved widows and seeking to get their money.
“He was a widower himself.”
This couple loved each other, it's in the book'
Simon Russell Flint is now reading extracts from Helen’s book, When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis.
“This book is dedicated to my gorgeous grey haired widower, I love you, you are my life.
“This couple loved each other, it’s in the book. They were both seeking solace in bereaved groups and that’s how they met, but she contacted him.
“They were more than happy together - no one disputes this.”
Defence tells court there were no signs of animosity
“Do you not think that if someone was plotting to murder their partner that there just might be some small sign or indication of that? “Animosity, dislike, presumably total hatred?
“There is nothing like that at all. With all the months of police probing, the questioning of everyone who knew Helen and Stewart, the examination of computer after computer, phone records, that that would have revealed the existence or some sort of evidence, some sort of complaint somewhere about the behaviour of the other?
“Two eyewitnesses who lived in the house with them, Stewart’s sons, gave evidence. The couple’s friends. Helen’s brother, her mother. “Not a single one says anything that would indicate any issue or tension.
“No losses of temper, shouting matches, screaming, tears, throwing things, nothing. “All that anybody reports is love, friendship, happiness.”
“Jamie Stewart said money was never an issue when they were growing up. He said Stewart loved Boris too.
“Alex McGarry said Helen and Stewart had a loving relationship.
“John Bailey, said he never heard Helen say a bad thing about Stewart.
“If Helen was going to confide in anybody, surely he would be the person.”
Defence says Ms Bailey was intelligent and perceptive yet she never voiced any concerns about Stewart
“Why in the numerous correspondence that we know Helen Bailey conducted, isn’t there a single reference to some unease or unhappiness in the way Stewart was towards her?
“Why is that, if there has been this plot or plan to kill her?
“This was not a short term relationship where he could have masked his true personality. You get to know someone, and Ms Bailey was a highly intelligent and perceptive individual.
“Do you believe she would not have, at some stage, seen an aspect of Stewart’s personality or of their relationship that would not have caused her to recall to someone?”
How can the murder of Helen be financially motivated if Stewart only needed to wait a couple of months and he could have been £1.5million or so better off?'
“She has written of him with a tenderness and an appreciation of his affection and support for her.
“He didn’t rush into a relationship with her. Yes it was physical within a month, but might Helen have been equally as eager for it to become an intimate relationship?
“Was it him jumping on her, or her jumping on him, or was it mutual?
“Stewart didn’t force her to sleep with him. There’s no suggestion of rape or pressure.
“Do you think Helen is someone who would have stood for that?
“Helen was someone who understood the difference between his character and her former husband John’s character.
“Stewart was giving her the time and space to move on.
“She wanted to buy a house and move in with him. She wanted to be in a relationship with her, and when he proposed to her she accepted with no hesitation.
“The two of them planned their wedding and future together.
“Is this picture presented to you one of the damaged relationship that you might imagine when someone plans to kill their partner? “How can the murder of Helen be financially motivated if Stewart only needed to wait a couple of months and he could have been £1.5million or so better off?”
If Helen had died after marrying Stewart, he could have been more than £1 million better off
“The prosecution have to find some reason as to what would have motivated Stewart to kill Helen, so think ‘let’s jump onto her wealth’.
“A nice idea that, but sadly just not true.
“And as you now know if she had died before the wedding, the consequences financially, were dire.
“Just suppose that Stewart and Helen had married in September, five months later.
“How much better off could he have been an hour after their wedding?
“How much better off could he have been if they had married before Helen died? Possibly more than £1million better off.
“So why on earth would he have not waited until after their wedding?”
Court adjourned for the day
That’s the end of the evidence for today. The case will continue tomorrow morning.
Defence barrister Simon Russell Flint is now giving his closing speech.
“So what do you think? It’s obvious according to Mr Trimmer, a slam dunk. An obvious decision.
“There’s considerable pressure being heaped upon you to do the right thing.
“This is the awful monstrous man who killed this lovely children’s author, a tragic widow.
“He’s the man who killed the defenseless Boris the dog.
“Do you have the strength of mind and the courage to listen to and analyse all the evidence, and to consider that with an open and unprejudiced mind?
“Are you going to be able to resist the temptation to not engage in speculation or guesswork?
“Not to indulge your own emotions when one considers the body of a lady and a dog in a cesspit?”
“If you have any reasonable doubts, you must find Stewart not guilty of each of the charges.
“You must be brave, and must consider whether you have to courage and strength to do that.”
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.”
What caused this smart, loving, family man aged 55 to suddenly decide to kill Helen Bailey?'
“There are questions that need to be answered.
“These are ‘Why how, where, when and who?
“Why would Stewart want to kill Helen? What motive did he have? What caused him, this smart, loving, family man aged 55 at the time, with no history or background of violence at all - what made him suddenly decide to kill Helen Bailey?
“The reality is that this is one of the hardest if not impossible questions for the Crown to answer, because there is no sensible reason. “What you would want to know before you convicted someone, is the answer to that question.”
There is nothing in Stewart's past or present to suggest this type of violence'
“There’s nothing in Stewart’s past or present hinted at to demonstrate this type of violence or aggression in his life at all.
“What would make him say ‘I know, I think I’ll kill the woman who has made my life so happy, so pleasant, so comfortable’?
“It makes no sense at all. In fact, it’s complete nonsense.”
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.”
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.”
Defence say Helen could have made the failed log-in attempts to the couple's join account
“You heard from witnesses yesterday that said Helen Bailey was still alive on the afternoon of April 11.
“But there is a log in at 2.28pm to Helen’s account using her pin and debit card.
“There were two failed attempts to set up a standing order to the couple’s joint account.
“Rather than risk three failed attempts and possibly a lock out, the pre-existing one was amended, from £600 to £4,000 a month. “Who’s the most likely candidate for having made a computer error? Stewart, the Crown say a computer expert, or Helen Bailey?
“Why having just killed your partner, if it’s Stewart and he’s trying to pretend to be Helen, why would he be so stupid to use his computer to log in to her bank, rather than use hers if she’s dead in the cesspit as the prosecution say?”
On the day he is meant to have killed her he had £22,000 in the joint account'
“We say this was Helen Bailey using Stewart’s computer, because her desk was always cluttered and his laptop had the advantage of being plugged into that large screen.
“He was either upstairs having a rest asleep, or he was asleep in the green chair.
“This nonsense that Helen would have to be logging onto Stewart’s computer sitting on his lap is ridiculous.
“The prosecution are ignoring the physical evidence that the photographs of the house pick out.
“If this man is a computer expert and is going to try to cover his tracks on his computer, surely this expert could have deleted the whole of his internet history so as not to leave any trace of any log in on his computer.
“So Stewart has killed Helen for greed, out of money, and has changed the standing order.
“On April 11, the day he is meant to have killed her, he had £22,000 in the joint account, let alone what is in his account.
“He doesn’t need further monthly transfers in.”
There was no massive expenditure or change to spending patterns after her death'
“Are there sudden massive withdrawals of money from the joint account after Helen’s death? No.
“There is no different pattern of spending, no personal amounts removed, no transfers of money to his account.
“Once the money goes in from Helen’s amended Barclay’s payment on May 9, are there any massive payments? No.
“Only the Arsenal season tickets, which he thought only he could do in her name and using her card for their joint account.
“This was to ensure continuity, and to ensure Helen wouldn’t lose out on those season tickets.
“It’s hardly earth shattering expenditure.”
Their life was more than going well, it was almost idyllic'
“Financial gain is Stewart’s sole motive, say the prosecution, and you may think it’s total rubbish.
“It’s not money, or greed, that you could properly conclude in any way as a motive that Stewart killed Helen Bailey.
“Their life was more than going well, it was almost idyllic, you’ve seen the comfortable warm lovely home they had. “Space for her, space for him, space for Boris, space for the boys, a big swimming pool.
“Perfect for all their needs. He wouldn’t want any of that without Helen Bailey.
“And given the loss he suffered many are not fortunate to find again, the love of a good woman who, on the evidence, more than loved him.
“The Crown say he is a predator, but he is no stalker searching for bereaved widows and seeking to get their money.
“He was a widower himself.”
This couple loved each other, it's in the book'
Simon Russell Flint is now reading extracts from Helen’s book, When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis.
“This book is dedicated to my gorgeous grey haired widower, I love you, you are my life.
“This couple loved each other, it’s in the book. They were both seeking solace in bereaved groups and that’s how they met, but she contacted him.
“They were more than happy together - no one disputes this.”
Defence tells court there were no signs of animosity
“Do you not think that if someone was plotting to murder their partner that there just might be some small sign or indication of that? “Animosity, dislike, presumably total hatred?
“There is nothing like that at all. With all the months of police probing, the questioning of everyone who knew Helen and Stewart, the examination of computer after computer, phone records, that that would have revealed the existence or some sort of evidence, some sort of complaint somewhere about the behaviour of the other?
“Two eyewitnesses who lived in the house with them, Stewart’s sons, gave evidence. The couple’s friends. Helen’s brother, her mother. “Not a single one says anything that would indicate any issue or tension.
“No losses of temper, shouting matches, screaming, tears, throwing things, nothing. “All that anybody reports is love, friendship, happiness.”
“Jamie Stewart said money was never an issue when they were growing up. He said Stewart loved Boris too.
“Alex McGarry said Helen and Stewart had a loving relationship.
“John Bailey, said he never heard Helen say a bad thing about Stewart.
“If Helen was going to confide in anybody, surely he would be the person.”
Defence says Ms Bailey was intelligent and perceptive yet she never voiced any concerns about Stewart
“Why in the numerous correspondence that we know Helen Bailey conducted, isn’t there a single reference to some unease or unhappiness in the way Stewart was towards her?
“Why is that, if there has been this plot or plan to kill her?
“This was not a short term relationship where he could have masked his true personality. You get to know someone, and Ms Bailey was a highly intelligent and perceptive individual.
“Do you believe she would not have, at some stage, seen an aspect of Stewart’s personality or of their relationship that would not have caused her to recall to someone?”
How can the murder of Helen be financially motivated if Stewart only needed to wait a couple of months and he could have been £1.5million or so better off?'
“She has written of him with a tenderness and an appreciation of his affection and support for her.
“He didn’t rush into a relationship with her. Yes it was physical within a month, but might Helen have been equally as eager for it to become an intimate relationship?
“Was it him jumping on her, or her jumping on him, or was it mutual?
“Stewart didn’t force her to sleep with him. There’s no suggestion of rape or pressure.
“Do you think Helen is someone who would have stood for that?
“Helen was someone who understood the difference between his character and her former husband John’s character.
“Stewart was giving her the time and space to move on.
“She wanted to buy a house and move in with him. She wanted to be in a relationship with her, and when he proposed to her she accepted with no hesitation.
“The two of them planned their wedding and future together.
“Is this picture presented to you one of the damaged relationship that you might imagine when someone plans to kill their partner? “How can the murder of Helen be financially motivated if Stewart only needed to wait a couple of months and he could have been £1.5million or so better off?”
If Helen had died after marrying Stewart, he could have been more than £1 million better off
“The prosecution have to find some reason as to what would have motivated Stewart to kill Helen, so think ‘let’s jump onto her wealth’.
“A nice idea that, but sadly just not true.
“And as you now know if she had died before the wedding, the consequences financially, were dire.
“Just suppose that Stewart and Helen had married in September, five months later.
“How much better off could he have been an hour after their wedding?
“How much better off could he have been if they had married before Helen died? Possibly more than £1million better off.
“So why on earth would he have not waited until after their wedding?”
Court adjourned for the day
That’s the end of the evidence for today. The case will continue tomorrow morning.
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,328
- Reaction score
- 54,897
10.41
Jurors called in
Jurors have now been called in. Simon Russell Flint, defence counsel for Ian Stewart, is continuing his closing speech.
Helen Bailey had not changed her finances in Stewart's favour
Mr Russell Flint is stating that Tony Hurley could have stopped Stewart from having a single penny of Ms Bailey’s will. “It was entirely within the discretion of Mr Hurley as whether Stewart got a penny from that will. “It’s inaccurate for the crown to say to you that Helen had changed her entire wealth structure in Stewart’s favour. “She just hadn’t - the will proves that. “What was said to you then was just plain wrong. “Mr Hurley had complete control and complete discretion. “Not one of the named 15 potential beneficiaries could force the trustee, Mr Hurley, to give him or her a penny.”
Stewart ' not 'financially motivated' - defence
“We haven’t seen a single reference to Stewart trying to get Helen to change her will in his favour. “Isn’t that a matter of huge significance? This fundamentally undermines the whole prosecution case in terms of Stewart’s motivation. “Nothing has been produced to you, because it doesn’t exist. Stewart wasn’t financially motivated. “He was already very comfortable, he didn’t want for anything, and he didn’t want or need any more.”
Court told Stewart had 'no motive' to kill Helen
“Stewart was content with what he had. “The only expenditure seems to be that one off purchase of his personal number plate, but he only did that after January 4, when he went to Addenbrooke’s and thought he was going to be dying of cancer. “Stewart’s sons loved Helen, Stewart was living with a person who was a mother figure for his boys. “They loved her, and she loved them back. “Why would he want to end all of this by killing her? “But the Crown, desperate to find some sort of motivation, have jumped to the conclusion he wanted to kill her for her money. “He had no motive to kill Helen at all, and had every reason not to kill her. Once you accept that this motive is just not there it makes the likelihood of the Crown’s theory very wrong. “This causes grave difficulties for the prosecution’s case.”
Who killed Helen?
“So who might have killed her? If you are sure she was unlawfully killed. How did she die before she ended up in the cess pit? Are you sure Helen was killed unlawfully? “We say very clearly on the evidence she wasn’t killed and she did not die shortly after 10.58am on the morning of April 11. “She was alive, she was well, she was later able to go out and walk Boris, later able to amend that standing order, and then walk Boris again. “And then a few weeks later, she was seen in Broadstairs alive and well.”
Helen killed 'in the company of Nick and Joe' - defence
“If she was unlawfully killed, it was after she had left Baldock Road in Royston and almost certainly while she was in the company of Nick and Joe. “So why would Nick and Joe kill her? There might be a whole host of reasons - she wouldn’t co-operate, she was proving obstructive, difficult, she was by the time she was killed, the subject of a massive police search.”
How did Helen die? - defence asks
“The second question - how did Helen die? Actually, nobody knows, despite an extensive postmortem. “Dr Nathaniel Cary doesn’t know. He has no more clue than you how she died. “She was in the cess pit, in the garage. “It’s gruesome to think about, but once nature had taken its course and the flesh had decomposed, what would have remained? “What would have remained would have been a skeleton, not just a few bones as was what was suggested to you. “So forever after during Stewart’s life, the skeleton of Helen would have been there in that cess pit, in that garage to the house they shared, available to be discovered at any time that cess pit was opened. “Anytime that it’s inspected, anytime it is drained. They were draining it annually.”
Leaving body at house would have been a 'ridiculous' plan
“Would you leave a body on your own doorstep for discovery at any time? Is that the reasoning of a long term crafted plan to do away with your partner? “A carefully carried out plan? It’s ridiculous, isn’t it?”
Helen had 'no signs of injury'
“Helen had no signs of any injury at all. There’s nothing to point in any way as to how she died. “What though if she had, as Dr Cary considered, voluntarily consumed both the sleeping pill Zopiclone and had also drunk alcohol?
“That Dr Cary could cause death, reduced to unconsciousness. “She could have, in her unconscious state, choked due to her airways being obstructed. “If, that is what happened, how does that make her death unlawful? “Nobody would have killed her, murdered her. It would have been a terrible accident.
“Yes, one thereafter might be guilty of failing to inform the coroner, preventing an unlawful burial, but Stewart can’t be guilty of unlawfully killing her if having found her like that, Helen was put into that cess pit.”
Perfect place' to hide a body
If Helen had died after leaving Baldock Road, what would Nick and Joe do? Dump Helen at the side of the road? Throw her over a boat into the sea? “Or might they put her in the perfect place to hide a body, that they had seen for themselves?”
No evidence that Helen was 'intoxicated' by medication at time of death
“Just because Helen’s body was in the cess pit, it doesn’t mean Helen was poisoned or intoxicated with a prescription sleeping drug at the time she died. “There’s no evidence at all that at the time she died, she was intoxicated by any sleeping drug.
“The Crown cannot know this, Dr Piper cannot know this. “All that can be said is that Helen had ingested Zopiclone at some time, on more than one occasion, over the previous months before her death.
“Just because there is Zopiclone traces in her hair, it doesn’t mean you or anybody could make the leap to the conclusion the Zopiclone she had taken had been administered to her surreptitiously, as opposed to her having willingly taken a tablet, and drunk a glass of wine.
“Toxicology results cannot tell whether Helen had taken this voluntarily, knowingly, or whether it had somehow been secretly administered to her.”
Helen Bailey took pills from Stewart
“Helen took these pills, she kept them in her pill bag, along with where she kept her hormone cream and other medication. “Her bag has never been found. She had the Zopiclone pills, she took them from Stewart.”
Not a shred of evidence' about increasing drug doses - defence
“What the prosecution said in the opening to you was that Stewart had killed Helen after secretly administered a sleeping drug to Helen in increasing amounts. “This was repeated several times.
“The trouble is, that’s not the evidence. It can’t be said Helen was taking Zopiclone in increasing amounts, or increasing concentrations.
“There’s not a shred of evidence from the toxicologist Dr Piper of the pathologist Dr Cary that Helen had been given increasing amounts of this drug at all.
“Drug quantities in the hair have to be taken cautiously. You cannot relate these to the quantities ingested. “That very important point in the prosecution’s case, we say, also falls away.”
Nothing to say how Helen died
“If you look at the pattern of activity on the day Helen allegedly died, her on the internet etc, there’s nothing to say Helen was sedated during the morning. “And if she wasn’t sedated at that time, what does that do to another one of the prosecution’s guesses?
“The bold and confident words in the prosecution opening was that Stewart killed Helen, probably by suffocation, while she was sedated. “But where’s the evidence to say this? There’s nothing to say how she died.”
Stewart could not have given Helen the drug when he was in hospital
“It wasn’t a massive dose of Zopiclone, Dr Piper said the drug had been taken by Helen more than once. “Stewart told you himself Helen took that more than once. He could not have given her any Zopiclone during the time he was in hospital on March 18-25.
“Yet it was then during that period, among other times, that Helen was reporting to others that she was feeling so tired. “How is he meant to have administered this drug? It is full of bulking powder.
“It has a filthy bitter taste, and an aftertaste. Did he crush it up, sprinkle it over her scrambled eggs, slip it to her pretending it was paracetamol?
“Did he stir one in her weak PG powder tea that she liked? After his operation, if there was food to be prepared Helen cooked it.”
Helen already complaining of feeling tired
“If Helen had been drugged with Zopiclone, why was she so tired already before the date it was prescribed? “How does that fit with the prosecution’s theory?
Helen’s mother knew as long back as 2012 Helen was complaining of being very tired and having a dizzy spell. “Leaving Boris on the beach was January, early February 2016 so around the Zopiclone time.
“She complained of feeling dizzy in November 2015, as a result she got new glasses. That was pre-Zopiclone as well.”
Hospital stay 'perfect alibi'
Helen had been complaining of the menopause since 2012. She complained to her friend in October 2015 that she was very tired. “She couldn’t see or feel her hands at the computer when she was recently widowed. “Helen feeling tired was not a new thing.
And if she was tired while Helen was in hospital, Stewart had the perfect alibi. “It couldn’t have been him giving Helen Zopiclone. “Do you really think Stewart immediately slipped the drug to Helen three days after he got it, before she went to her check up?”
Secret drugging 'complete fallacy' - court told
“What were the results of this well woman assessment that Helen went to - did this shed any light on the complete fallacy that Helen was secretly being drugged with Zopiclone obtained by the defendant on January 25?
The assessment was conducted on January 28 - Helen said she was suffering hot flushes, disturbed sleep. She was dealing with signs of the menopause, and she had high blood pressure.
“She was also using beta blockers to help her with her anxiety. “She’d also been using hormones to help her with the menopause on and off since 2012.”
Helen could have taken pills to get some sleep
“Why could she not have taken these sleeping pills herself? “With her disturbed sleep pattern she reported on January 28, why could she not have decided to take a Zopiclone tablet herself over whatever period.
“She was frantic with worry when Stewart was in hospital. She and he were both stressed, almost beyond measure, when his surgery was cancelled not once, but twice, in the ward, ready to go in the operating theatre.
“Helen was at home alone, without Stewart, for the first time in ages. Might she not have thought ‘I need some sleep, I’m going to take one of these’?
One packet of pills not enough
“If you’re intent on killing someone with a sleeping pill, would one packet, 28 tablets, be sufficient? “Would one packet of the safest and mildest sleeping pills be sufficient for a long term plan? No.
“Why not go back, get more than one packet, so that he could up the dose? “One packet meant the tablets would all have run out on February 22, yet he was meant to have poisoned her on April 11.
“Why on earth, if smothering was the plan, would you bother with sleeping pills at all? “Why not wait until lying in bed together, and that night she fell asleep completely naturally, and then smother her with a pillow? “You don’t need to drug her.”
No electronic 'footprint' for Helen
“There’s no electronic footprint for Helen shown in our timeline at all for 1,2,3,4,5 of April. “Nothing on April 9 or 10 either. “Is Helen’s deliberate poisoning just another guess by the prosecution? “If Helen was smothered, the instinct would be to struggle, to fight back.
“So when it was suggested to Stewart, it seemed to be put that Helen was at her desk, at her iPad on April 11, him not having the opportunity to kill on over the weekend, and that Monday morning he crept up behind her and smothered her with a pillow?”
No proof pillow case was linked to death
“Nobody had any idea when that pillowcase did get into the cess pit, nor how it got in there or where it come from. “Whether it was connected to Helen Bailey being placed in the cess pit at all.
“Jamie and Oliver did not report a pillowcase missing. Did the police ever bother to compare the pillowcase from the cess pit with any other pillow cases found in the Baldock Road house?
“You’ve heard no evidence at all that such an exercise be undertaken. Why could that pillowcase not have originated from anywhere else? Joe’s house, Nick’s house? There’s no proof it was linked to Helen’s death at all.”
Nothing found to suggest a struggle - defence
“There’s cushions galore in that house, why bring a pillow from upstairs to downstairs? “Where is that pillow, that the pillowcase matches? “He had to get rid of the duvet, because that apparently was used in the killing, but what happened to the murder weapon itself - a pillow?
“Is that still there in the house? Why did this pillow not go to the tip, as the duvet did? “Nothing has been found to suggest a struggle has occurred.
There were no marks on Helen’s body, no evidence of Helen clawing at Stewart’s face, no evidence of Stewart’s skin being found under her fingernails.”
Stewart was resting after major surgery
“Even being tired wouldn’t have prevented Helen from fighting back against someone recovering from major surgery. “Stewart was lethargic, tired, he spent most of time resting or in bed.”
Helen 'active' not drugged
“If Helen had been drugged, it doesn’t appear to have been taking much effect at the time the Crown say she was killed, shortly after 11am on April 11.
“On this morning Helen had been active on her computer from 8.16am until 9.28am. “She also made a call to the solicitors at 9.04am.
“Was she asleep? No. Drowsy? Under the knockout influence of Zopiclone? Unlikely, because the next thing we know is that Helen is out walking Boris.”
Helen was looking at wedding planning site
“Helen was clearly not drugged, falling over. “From 10.06am until 10.58am Helen is on the computer, not in bed, not passing out, collapsing, falling asleep.
“At 10.58am the last thing she’s looking at was the proposers thing on Twitter - a website relating to wedding planning. “Helen was still planning their wedding.
It’s not a website for how to leave your partner, how to get out of an abusive relationship.”
No evidence as to how Helen Bailey died
“There is no evidence in which any sensible inference could be drawn to permit you to say ‘I am sure, without doubt, how Helen died’.
“You just cannot come to that conclusion.” There will now be a short break until 12.05pm.
Defence - 'no evidence' to say Helen Bailey died at the house
Simon Russell Flint: “I’m going to ask you where you think Helen died? Are you sure it was in that house? “What evidence is there that you can say for certain? “It really is a question of guessing.
“There’s no evidence, despite searches, police dogs searching every inch of the house, the grounds, there’s no evidence to show you that Helen’s death happened in the house.
“The best the Crown can do is say ‘look that very day Stewart took a duvet to the tip. The duvet must have been used somehow in the killing of Helen’.
Stewart's blood account 'the truth'
“The Crown’s case is that Stewart is fit healthy and well and could have done all these physical things, such as carrying a body. “What about the duvet? Is that actually in any way involved in Helen’s death?
Or was Stewart giving a truthful and accurate account that he bled on the duvet cover and really messed it up? “Stewart said that was the case. Preposterous, or actually the truth? “It’s the truth, because it’s confirmed by an independent source.”
Ian 'bleeding on sheets'
“The evidence, from the mother of Helen Bailey’s godchildren Janice Rochester, proves beyond doubt Stewart is telling the truth about the duvet.
“Janice told you she thought on April 6, she had a phone call with Helen, and that Helen said ‘Ian had been bleeding on the bed sheets’. “Isn’t that precisely what Stewart said?
It couldn’t be disposed of before April 11, because he had not been allowed by his surgeon to drive before then.”
Stewart told police he had been at the tip
“The CCTV photos show Stewart carrying empty boxes at the rubbish tip. “Empty cardboard boxes are obviously a very different weight to a dead body.
“If Stewart was intentionally disposing of evidence and perverting the course of justice, why was he the one who volunteered to one of the first police officers that he had been to the tip that afternoon?
“Without him disclosing that, police would have had no clue he had been to the tip at all.
“Why would he have volunteered that fact if he had something to hide? “You might conclude that duvet had nothing to do with Helen’s death.”
Why use duvet to move body?
“If Helen was killed in the study, why on earth would he use their duvet to drag her to the cess pit? “When the cleaner came to work two days later (April 13) there’s a duvet on their bed. “There is no evidence of him rushing out and buying a new duvet.”
Defence - more than enough rugs and blankets downstairs to move body
“The cleaner was wrong about it being unusual to see bedding and clothing hanging on the back of the chairs in the dining and kitchen areas.
“Jamie confirmed that was the usual practice. “If Helen is killed downstairs at her desk, why go all the way upstairs, strip off the duvet cover, then taken the duvet itself downstairs for that exercise of dragging Helen to the cess pit? “Why would you use a duvet? Why your duvet, off your bed?
“The photos show there are more than enough rugs, or blankets on the sofa downstairs. Why not use one of those?”
Why did Stewart go back to tip?
“Did Stewart go back to the tip on April 13? Did he really just sit in the car? “The Crown say he went back there and just sat in the car. That’s not what Stewart said. “Did that actually happen? The camera at the tip is not activated unless a vehicle or a person moves.
“The Crown said Stewart went back to the tip to ‘ensure the duvet was safely gone’. “If he didn’t move from the car, how could he have known the duvet had gone or not?
He couldn’t tell if the skip was the same one or not.”
Implausible' that Stewart killed Helen Bailey - jury told
“There’s no forensic evidence that Helen was killed in the house. Does it make it more likely she died somewhere else?
“Surely it’s becoming more and more implausible that Stewart killed her.
“What about these two black bin liners in the cess pit? What have they got to do with this? Nobody can say how they got there.
“Plastic bags are non-degradable. “Surely they would have been rather useful items in the transportation of a body. “A body wrapped up inside those bags, put into the boot of a car, transported across from wherever, dumped in the cess pit, leaving no forensic trace inside that vehicle at all.
“The same I guess goes for Boris. Entice the dog into the bin bag with a dog toy?”
Nick and Joe' knew of cess pit
“Both Nick and Joe had previously seen the cess pit and its location, said Stewart. “They could have read in the press reports on April 22 that by that day, following extensive searches, it was reported in the media that the cess pit had been drained.
“So they knew there was more than one cess pit - but they would have realised that the cess pit was an ideal place to hide a body. “It’s ideal for their purposes.
“What better reason to return her home to her home address and to dump her in that ideal place to hide a body?”
Defence - Helen 'not killed' on morning of April 11
“So when was Helen killed? The Crown say sometime after 10.58am.
“The trouble is for them there is considerable direct and circumstantial evidence that that is not true. “There is considerable evidence Helen was alive and well long after 11am on April 11.
“Her death did not occur much later in the month of April after it was reported in the press that police had searched the Royston house, including draining the cess pit.
“There is evidence that is still unshaken, despite the Crown’s best evidence to shift those witnesses from their position. “The lynch in the prosecution’s case has disappeared, because Helen was not killed in the morning of April 11.”
Would Stewart have kept appointment with solicitor?
“If Stewart had just killed his wife, was the appointment to the solicitors one he had to keep on April 11? “Would he really have gone to the solicitors that day to deliver a few files after killing Helen and the dog, and throwing them in the cess pit?
“Is Helen renewing her searches as to why she felt so exhausted? No. “Might Helen have just have put down the iPad and turned to doing something else after 10.58am on April 11?
“Might she have popped out to get some milk? Actually do some writing? “Can you exclude those possibilities? “There isn’t any proof Helen popped out for milk and returned home upset, so why on earth should that detail pop into Stewart’s account?”
Would Stewart have called surgery about his dressing if he had killed Helen?
“Helen hadn’t used her phone at all that day (April 11) even when she was very much alive and sending emails that morning.
“Do you really truly believe that her killer’s instantaneous reaction would be coolly, calmly, to pick up the body of the woman and the dog, and remember to call the doctor’s surgery about his scheduled appointment to have his dressing changed?
“Would that really spring to the foremost of his mind if he had brutally and savagely just killed Helen?”
Defence says Helen was alive not dead on April 11
“And when Stewart does call the doctors, he doesn’t cancel the appointment, but rearranges it for three and a half hours later that very same afternoon.
“Do you really think someone would do that? Would he even remember to do that, if Helen was dead and lying on the floor? “We say Helen was still alive on April 11, she was not dead
Helen and Boris seen alive
“Both Catherine and Janice Richards saw Helen and Boris very much alive and walking along the street between 1pm and 2.20pm. “Fact or fiction?
“Both mother and daughter cross checked their movements, their spending, what they’d been doing, to provide as accurate a picture as they could to the police.
“If both those two ladies are right, then the prosecution case disintegrates completely. “Stewart did not kill Helen in the way the prosecution sat they did.
Those witnesses say they categorically saw Helen with Boris between 1pm and 2.20pm on April 11. “Another witness said she saw Helen between 3.40pm and 3.50pm, a time when the defendant was out.”
Stewart 'appeared normal' to nurse after supposedly killing Helen
“When Stewart left his house at 2.45pm on April 11 after his sleep, Helen Bailey was alive, she waved him off from the window. “The nurse [at the doctor’s surgery] said Stewart appeared normal.
But he’d just apparently killed his wife, and their dog. “The important factor is there was no difference in his behaviour and appearance, at 2.54pm on April 11.
“His behaviour was no different, because he had no reason other than to believe that Helen Bailey was alive and well.”
Stewart 'punched and threatened'
“Stewart left the surgery at 3.07pm, then he went to the tip. “He then went to the solicitors and went home by about 4.15pm at the latest.
“That’s when he noticed Helen wasn’t home.
She had gone, as had Boris, and following his return was the knock at the front door, and there was Nick who punched him, threatened him, told him Helen was with them but would be back on Friday.”
No need to set alarm because Helen was at home
“He told Stewart to act normal. Fiction? Fantasy? Or might that be true?
“If it’s not true, what is exceptionally interesting is that, if as the prosecution allege, Stewart had killed Helen and dumped her in the cess pit, what was the state of the house after that?
“Jamie’s at work, Oliver’s at work, Helen’s dead. “When he leaves the house to go to the doctors, he leaves the house empty and unoccupied.
“What’s the state of the evidence relating to the setting of the alarm? “The officer told you that whenever the house was left unoccupied the alarm was activated.
“He didn’t set the alarm when he left for the doctor’s, because the house wasn’t unoccupied - Helen was home and waving him off from the window with Boris in her arms. “There was no need for him to set this alarm as he would do normally if the house is unoccupied.”
Jury asked how they would react if partner was threatened
“It’s all very well to think about what Stewart should have done or might have done as we sit here nine months later in the cold light of day.
“Would you know what to do if a threat had been made to your partner’s life, do you know how you would react?
“You can’t honestly and truly say ‘I would’ve called the police’ not knowing what safety measures would be put in place to protect your partner.
“Press reports with a newsflash of ‘famous author abducted from her own home’, might have put her in that very jeopardy you wanted to avoid at all costs.”
Stewart 'stuck' with lie, court told as hearing breaks for lunch
“Once Stewart had told the lie [of Helen going missing] he was stuck with it.
“Having told his sons on Tuesday, he was stuck with saying it to Helen’s friends, to her brother.
“The lie was getting out of control, but he had to maintain the pretence and hope she would return as Nick had told him she would be.” There will now be a lunch break until 2.05pm.
Jurors called in
Jurors have now been called in. Simon Russell Flint, defence counsel for Ian Stewart, is continuing his closing speech.
Helen Bailey had not changed her finances in Stewart's favour
Mr Russell Flint is stating that Tony Hurley could have stopped Stewart from having a single penny of Ms Bailey’s will. “It was entirely within the discretion of Mr Hurley as whether Stewart got a penny from that will. “It’s inaccurate for the crown to say to you that Helen had changed her entire wealth structure in Stewart’s favour. “She just hadn’t - the will proves that. “What was said to you then was just plain wrong. “Mr Hurley had complete control and complete discretion. “Not one of the named 15 potential beneficiaries could force the trustee, Mr Hurley, to give him or her a penny.”
Stewart ' not 'financially motivated' - defence
“We haven’t seen a single reference to Stewart trying to get Helen to change her will in his favour. “Isn’t that a matter of huge significance? This fundamentally undermines the whole prosecution case in terms of Stewart’s motivation. “Nothing has been produced to you, because it doesn’t exist. Stewart wasn’t financially motivated. “He was already very comfortable, he didn’t want for anything, and he didn’t want or need any more.”
Court told Stewart had 'no motive' to kill Helen
“Stewart was content with what he had. “The only expenditure seems to be that one off purchase of his personal number plate, but he only did that after January 4, when he went to Addenbrooke’s and thought he was going to be dying of cancer. “Stewart’s sons loved Helen, Stewart was living with a person who was a mother figure for his boys. “They loved her, and she loved them back. “Why would he want to end all of this by killing her? “But the Crown, desperate to find some sort of motivation, have jumped to the conclusion he wanted to kill her for her money. “He had no motive to kill Helen at all, and had every reason not to kill her. Once you accept that this motive is just not there it makes the likelihood of the Crown’s theory very wrong. “This causes grave difficulties for the prosecution’s case.”
Who killed Helen?
“So who might have killed her? If you are sure she was unlawfully killed. How did she die before she ended up in the cess pit? Are you sure Helen was killed unlawfully? “We say very clearly on the evidence she wasn’t killed and she did not die shortly after 10.58am on the morning of April 11. “She was alive, she was well, she was later able to go out and walk Boris, later able to amend that standing order, and then walk Boris again. “And then a few weeks later, she was seen in Broadstairs alive and well.”
Helen killed 'in the company of Nick and Joe' - defence
“If she was unlawfully killed, it was after she had left Baldock Road in Royston and almost certainly while she was in the company of Nick and Joe. “So why would Nick and Joe kill her? There might be a whole host of reasons - she wouldn’t co-operate, she was proving obstructive, difficult, she was by the time she was killed, the subject of a massive police search.”
How did Helen die? - defence asks
“The second question - how did Helen die? Actually, nobody knows, despite an extensive postmortem. “Dr Nathaniel Cary doesn’t know. He has no more clue than you how she died. “She was in the cess pit, in the garage. “It’s gruesome to think about, but once nature had taken its course and the flesh had decomposed, what would have remained? “What would have remained would have been a skeleton, not just a few bones as was what was suggested to you. “So forever after during Stewart’s life, the skeleton of Helen would have been there in that cess pit, in that garage to the house they shared, available to be discovered at any time that cess pit was opened. “Anytime that it’s inspected, anytime it is drained. They were draining it annually.”
Leaving body at house would have been a 'ridiculous' plan
“Would you leave a body on your own doorstep for discovery at any time? Is that the reasoning of a long term crafted plan to do away with your partner? “A carefully carried out plan? It’s ridiculous, isn’t it?”
Helen had 'no signs of injury'
“Helen had no signs of any injury at all. There’s nothing to point in any way as to how she died. “What though if she had, as Dr Cary considered, voluntarily consumed both the sleeping pill Zopiclone and had also drunk alcohol?
“That Dr Cary could cause death, reduced to unconsciousness. “She could have, in her unconscious state, choked due to her airways being obstructed. “If, that is what happened, how does that make her death unlawful? “Nobody would have killed her, murdered her. It would have been a terrible accident.
“Yes, one thereafter might be guilty of failing to inform the coroner, preventing an unlawful burial, but Stewart can’t be guilty of unlawfully killing her if having found her like that, Helen was put into that cess pit.”
Perfect place' to hide a body
If Helen had died after leaving Baldock Road, what would Nick and Joe do? Dump Helen at the side of the road? Throw her over a boat into the sea? “Or might they put her in the perfect place to hide a body, that they had seen for themselves?”
No evidence that Helen was 'intoxicated' by medication at time of death
“Just because Helen’s body was in the cess pit, it doesn’t mean Helen was poisoned or intoxicated with a prescription sleeping drug at the time she died. “There’s no evidence at all that at the time she died, she was intoxicated by any sleeping drug.
“The Crown cannot know this, Dr Piper cannot know this. “All that can be said is that Helen had ingested Zopiclone at some time, on more than one occasion, over the previous months before her death.
“Just because there is Zopiclone traces in her hair, it doesn’t mean you or anybody could make the leap to the conclusion the Zopiclone she had taken had been administered to her surreptitiously, as opposed to her having willingly taken a tablet, and drunk a glass of wine.
“Toxicology results cannot tell whether Helen had taken this voluntarily, knowingly, or whether it had somehow been secretly administered to her.”
Helen Bailey took pills from Stewart
“Helen took these pills, she kept them in her pill bag, along with where she kept her hormone cream and other medication. “Her bag has never been found. She had the Zopiclone pills, she took them from Stewart.”
Not a shred of evidence' about increasing drug doses - defence
“What the prosecution said in the opening to you was that Stewart had killed Helen after secretly administered a sleeping drug to Helen in increasing amounts. “This was repeated several times.
“The trouble is, that’s not the evidence. It can’t be said Helen was taking Zopiclone in increasing amounts, or increasing concentrations.
“There’s not a shred of evidence from the toxicologist Dr Piper of the pathologist Dr Cary that Helen had been given increasing amounts of this drug at all.
“Drug quantities in the hair have to be taken cautiously. You cannot relate these to the quantities ingested. “That very important point in the prosecution’s case, we say, also falls away.”
Nothing to say how Helen died
“If you look at the pattern of activity on the day Helen allegedly died, her on the internet etc, there’s nothing to say Helen was sedated during the morning. “And if she wasn’t sedated at that time, what does that do to another one of the prosecution’s guesses?
“The bold and confident words in the prosecution opening was that Stewart killed Helen, probably by suffocation, while she was sedated. “But where’s the evidence to say this? There’s nothing to say how she died.”
Stewart could not have given Helen the drug when he was in hospital
“It wasn’t a massive dose of Zopiclone, Dr Piper said the drug had been taken by Helen more than once. “Stewart told you himself Helen took that more than once. He could not have given her any Zopiclone during the time he was in hospital on March 18-25.
“Yet it was then during that period, among other times, that Helen was reporting to others that she was feeling so tired. “How is he meant to have administered this drug? It is full of bulking powder.
“It has a filthy bitter taste, and an aftertaste. Did he crush it up, sprinkle it over her scrambled eggs, slip it to her pretending it was paracetamol?
“Did he stir one in her weak PG powder tea that she liked? After his operation, if there was food to be prepared Helen cooked it.”
Helen already complaining of feeling tired
“If Helen had been drugged with Zopiclone, why was she so tired already before the date it was prescribed? “How does that fit with the prosecution’s theory?
Helen’s mother knew as long back as 2012 Helen was complaining of being very tired and having a dizzy spell. “Leaving Boris on the beach was January, early February 2016 so around the Zopiclone time.
“She complained of feeling dizzy in November 2015, as a result she got new glasses. That was pre-Zopiclone as well.”
Hospital stay 'perfect alibi'
Helen had been complaining of the menopause since 2012. She complained to her friend in October 2015 that she was very tired. “She couldn’t see or feel her hands at the computer when she was recently widowed. “Helen feeling tired was not a new thing.
And if she was tired while Helen was in hospital, Stewart had the perfect alibi. “It couldn’t have been him giving Helen Zopiclone. “Do you really think Stewart immediately slipped the drug to Helen three days after he got it, before she went to her check up?”
Secret drugging 'complete fallacy' - court told
“What were the results of this well woman assessment that Helen went to - did this shed any light on the complete fallacy that Helen was secretly being drugged with Zopiclone obtained by the defendant on January 25?
The assessment was conducted on January 28 - Helen said she was suffering hot flushes, disturbed sleep. She was dealing with signs of the menopause, and she had high blood pressure.
“She was also using beta blockers to help her with her anxiety. “She’d also been using hormones to help her with the menopause on and off since 2012.”
Helen could have taken pills to get some sleep
“Why could she not have taken these sleeping pills herself? “With her disturbed sleep pattern she reported on January 28, why could she not have decided to take a Zopiclone tablet herself over whatever period.
“She was frantic with worry when Stewart was in hospital. She and he were both stressed, almost beyond measure, when his surgery was cancelled not once, but twice, in the ward, ready to go in the operating theatre.
“Helen was at home alone, without Stewart, for the first time in ages. Might she not have thought ‘I need some sleep, I’m going to take one of these’?
One packet of pills not enough
“If you’re intent on killing someone with a sleeping pill, would one packet, 28 tablets, be sufficient? “Would one packet of the safest and mildest sleeping pills be sufficient for a long term plan? No.
“Why not go back, get more than one packet, so that he could up the dose? “One packet meant the tablets would all have run out on February 22, yet he was meant to have poisoned her on April 11.
“Why on earth, if smothering was the plan, would you bother with sleeping pills at all? “Why not wait until lying in bed together, and that night she fell asleep completely naturally, and then smother her with a pillow? “You don’t need to drug her.”
No electronic 'footprint' for Helen
“There’s no electronic footprint for Helen shown in our timeline at all for 1,2,3,4,5 of April. “Nothing on April 9 or 10 either. “Is Helen’s deliberate poisoning just another guess by the prosecution? “If Helen was smothered, the instinct would be to struggle, to fight back.
“So when it was suggested to Stewart, it seemed to be put that Helen was at her desk, at her iPad on April 11, him not having the opportunity to kill on over the weekend, and that Monday morning he crept up behind her and smothered her with a pillow?”
No proof pillow case was linked to death
“Nobody had any idea when that pillowcase did get into the cess pit, nor how it got in there or where it come from. “Whether it was connected to Helen Bailey being placed in the cess pit at all.
“Jamie and Oliver did not report a pillowcase missing. Did the police ever bother to compare the pillowcase from the cess pit with any other pillow cases found in the Baldock Road house?
“You’ve heard no evidence at all that such an exercise be undertaken. Why could that pillowcase not have originated from anywhere else? Joe’s house, Nick’s house? There’s no proof it was linked to Helen’s death at all.”
Nothing found to suggest a struggle - defence
“There’s cushions galore in that house, why bring a pillow from upstairs to downstairs? “Where is that pillow, that the pillowcase matches? “He had to get rid of the duvet, because that apparently was used in the killing, but what happened to the murder weapon itself - a pillow?
“Is that still there in the house? Why did this pillow not go to the tip, as the duvet did? “Nothing has been found to suggest a struggle has occurred.
There were no marks on Helen’s body, no evidence of Helen clawing at Stewart’s face, no evidence of Stewart’s skin being found under her fingernails.”
Stewart was resting after major surgery
“Even being tired wouldn’t have prevented Helen from fighting back against someone recovering from major surgery. “Stewart was lethargic, tired, he spent most of time resting or in bed.”
Helen 'active' not drugged
“If Helen had been drugged, it doesn’t appear to have been taking much effect at the time the Crown say she was killed, shortly after 11am on April 11.
“On this morning Helen had been active on her computer from 8.16am until 9.28am. “She also made a call to the solicitors at 9.04am.
“Was she asleep? No. Drowsy? Under the knockout influence of Zopiclone? Unlikely, because the next thing we know is that Helen is out walking Boris.”
Helen was looking at wedding planning site
“Helen was clearly not drugged, falling over. “From 10.06am until 10.58am Helen is on the computer, not in bed, not passing out, collapsing, falling asleep.
“At 10.58am the last thing she’s looking at was the proposers thing on Twitter - a website relating to wedding planning. “Helen was still planning their wedding.
It’s not a website for how to leave your partner, how to get out of an abusive relationship.”
No evidence as to how Helen Bailey died
“There is no evidence in which any sensible inference could be drawn to permit you to say ‘I am sure, without doubt, how Helen died’.
“You just cannot come to that conclusion.” There will now be a short break until 12.05pm.
Defence - 'no evidence' to say Helen Bailey died at the house
Simon Russell Flint: “I’m going to ask you where you think Helen died? Are you sure it was in that house? “What evidence is there that you can say for certain? “It really is a question of guessing.
“There’s no evidence, despite searches, police dogs searching every inch of the house, the grounds, there’s no evidence to show you that Helen’s death happened in the house.
“The best the Crown can do is say ‘look that very day Stewart took a duvet to the tip. The duvet must have been used somehow in the killing of Helen’.
Stewart's blood account 'the truth'
“The Crown’s case is that Stewart is fit healthy and well and could have done all these physical things, such as carrying a body. “What about the duvet? Is that actually in any way involved in Helen’s death?
Or was Stewart giving a truthful and accurate account that he bled on the duvet cover and really messed it up? “Stewart said that was the case. Preposterous, or actually the truth? “It’s the truth, because it’s confirmed by an independent source.”
Ian 'bleeding on sheets'
“The evidence, from the mother of Helen Bailey’s godchildren Janice Rochester, proves beyond doubt Stewart is telling the truth about the duvet.
“Janice told you she thought on April 6, she had a phone call with Helen, and that Helen said ‘Ian had been bleeding on the bed sheets’. “Isn’t that precisely what Stewart said?
It couldn’t be disposed of before April 11, because he had not been allowed by his surgeon to drive before then.”
Stewart told police he had been at the tip
“The CCTV photos show Stewart carrying empty boxes at the rubbish tip. “Empty cardboard boxes are obviously a very different weight to a dead body.
“If Stewart was intentionally disposing of evidence and perverting the course of justice, why was he the one who volunteered to one of the first police officers that he had been to the tip that afternoon?
“Without him disclosing that, police would have had no clue he had been to the tip at all.
“Why would he have volunteered that fact if he had something to hide? “You might conclude that duvet had nothing to do with Helen’s death.”
Why use duvet to move body?
“If Helen was killed in the study, why on earth would he use their duvet to drag her to the cess pit? “When the cleaner came to work two days later (April 13) there’s a duvet on their bed. “There is no evidence of him rushing out and buying a new duvet.”
Defence - more than enough rugs and blankets downstairs to move body
“The cleaner was wrong about it being unusual to see bedding and clothing hanging on the back of the chairs in the dining and kitchen areas.
“Jamie confirmed that was the usual practice. “If Helen is killed downstairs at her desk, why go all the way upstairs, strip off the duvet cover, then taken the duvet itself downstairs for that exercise of dragging Helen to the cess pit? “Why would you use a duvet? Why your duvet, off your bed?
“The photos show there are more than enough rugs, or blankets on the sofa downstairs. Why not use one of those?”
Why did Stewart go back to tip?
“Did Stewart go back to the tip on April 13? Did he really just sit in the car? “The Crown say he went back there and just sat in the car. That’s not what Stewart said. “Did that actually happen? The camera at the tip is not activated unless a vehicle or a person moves.
“The Crown said Stewart went back to the tip to ‘ensure the duvet was safely gone’. “If he didn’t move from the car, how could he have known the duvet had gone or not?
He couldn’t tell if the skip was the same one or not.”
Implausible' that Stewart killed Helen Bailey - jury told
“There’s no forensic evidence that Helen was killed in the house. Does it make it more likely she died somewhere else?
“Surely it’s becoming more and more implausible that Stewart killed her.
“What about these two black bin liners in the cess pit? What have they got to do with this? Nobody can say how they got there.
“Plastic bags are non-degradable. “Surely they would have been rather useful items in the transportation of a body. “A body wrapped up inside those bags, put into the boot of a car, transported across from wherever, dumped in the cess pit, leaving no forensic trace inside that vehicle at all.
“The same I guess goes for Boris. Entice the dog into the bin bag with a dog toy?”
Nick and Joe' knew of cess pit
“Both Nick and Joe had previously seen the cess pit and its location, said Stewart. “They could have read in the press reports on April 22 that by that day, following extensive searches, it was reported in the media that the cess pit had been drained.
“So they knew there was more than one cess pit - but they would have realised that the cess pit was an ideal place to hide a body. “It’s ideal for their purposes.
“What better reason to return her home to her home address and to dump her in that ideal place to hide a body?”
Defence - Helen 'not killed' on morning of April 11
“So when was Helen killed? The Crown say sometime after 10.58am.
“The trouble is for them there is considerable direct and circumstantial evidence that that is not true. “There is considerable evidence Helen was alive and well long after 11am on April 11.
“Her death did not occur much later in the month of April after it was reported in the press that police had searched the Royston house, including draining the cess pit.
“There is evidence that is still unshaken, despite the Crown’s best evidence to shift those witnesses from their position. “The lynch in the prosecution’s case has disappeared, because Helen was not killed in the morning of April 11.”
Would Stewart have kept appointment with solicitor?
“If Stewart had just killed his wife, was the appointment to the solicitors one he had to keep on April 11? “Would he really have gone to the solicitors that day to deliver a few files after killing Helen and the dog, and throwing them in the cess pit?
“Is Helen renewing her searches as to why she felt so exhausted? No. “Might Helen have just have put down the iPad and turned to doing something else after 10.58am on April 11?
“Might she have popped out to get some milk? Actually do some writing? “Can you exclude those possibilities? “There isn’t any proof Helen popped out for milk and returned home upset, so why on earth should that detail pop into Stewart’s account?”
Would Stewart have called surgery about his dressing if he had killed Helen?
“Helen hadn’t used her phone at all that day (April 11) even when she was very much alive and sending emails that morning.
“Do you really truly believe that her killer’s instantaneous reaction would be coolly, calmly, to pick up the body of the woman and the dog, and remember to call the doctor’s surgery about his scheduled appointment to have his dressing changed?
“Would that really spring to the foremost of his mind if he had brutally and savagely just killed Helen?”
Defence says Helen was alive not dead on April 11
“And when Stewart does call the doctors, he doesn’t cancel the appointment, but rearranges it for three and a half hours later that very same afternoon.
“Do you really think someone would do that? Would he even remember to do that, if Helen was dead and lying on the floor? “We say Helen was still alive on April 11, she was not dead
Helen and Boris seen alive
“Both Catherine and Janice Richards saw Helen and Boris very much alive and walking along the street between 1pm and 2.20pm. “Fact or fiction?
“Both mother and daughter cross checked their movements, their spending, what they’d been doing, to provide as accurate a picture as they could to the police.
“If both those two ladies are right, then the prosecution case disintegrates completely. “Stewart did not kill Helen in the way the prosecution sat they did.
Those witnesses say they categorically saw Helen with Boris between 1pm and 2.20pm on April 11. “Another witness said she saw Helen between 3.40pm and 3.50pm, a time when the defendant was out.”
Stewart 'appeared normal' to nurse after supposedly killing Helen
“When Stewart left his house at 2.45pm on April 11 after his sleep, Helen Bailey was alive, she waved him off from the window. “The nurse [at the doctor’s surgery] said Stewart appeared normal.
But he’d just apparently killed his wife, and their dog. “The important factor is there was no difference in his behaviour and appearance, at 2.54pm on April 11.
“His behaviour was no different, because he had no reason other than to believe that Helen Bailey was alive and well.”
Stewart 'punched and threatened'
“Stewart left the surgery at 3.07pm, then he went to the tip. “He then went to the solicitors and went home by about 4.15pm at the latest.
“That’s when he noticed Helen wasn’t home.
She had gone, as had Boris, and following his return was the knock at the front door, and there was Nick who punched him, threatened him, told him Helen was with them but would be back on Friday.”
No need to set alarm because Helen was at home
“He told Stewart to act normal. Fiction? Fantasy? Or might that be true?
“If it’s not true, what is exceptionally interesting is that, if as the prosecution allege, Stewart had killed Helen and dumped her in the cess pit, what was the state of the house after that?
“Jamie’s at work, Oliver’s at work, Helen’s dead. “When he leaves the house to go to the doctors, he leaves the house empty and unoccupied.
“What’s the state of the evidence relating to the setting of the alarm? “The officer told you that whenever the house was left unoccupied the alarm was activated.
“He didn’t set the alarm when he left for the doctor’s, because the house wasn’t unoccupied - Helen was home and waving him off from the window with Boris in her arms. “There was no need for him to set this alarm as he would do normally if the house is unoccupied.”
Jury asked how they would react if partner was threatened
“It’s all very well to think about what Stewart should have done or might have done as we sit here nine months later in the cold light of day.
“Would you know what to do if a threat had been made to your partner’s life, do you know how you would react?
“You can’t honestly and truly say ‘I would’ve called the police’ not knowing what safety measures would be put in place to protect your partner.
“Press reports with a newsflash of ‘famous author abducted from her own home’, might have put her in that very jeopardy you wanted to avoid at all costs.”
Stewart 'stuck' with lie, court told as hearing breaks for lunch
“Once Stewart had told the lie [of Helen going missing] he was stuck with it.
“Having told his sons on Tuesday, he was stuck with saying it to Helen’s friends, to her brother.
“The lie was getting out of control, but he had to maintain the pretence and hope she would return as Nick had told him she would be.” There will now be a lunch break until 2.05pm.
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,328
- Reaction score
- 54,897
Helen asked for phone
Simon Russell Flint, defending Stewart, is continuing his closing speech. He is speaking about Friday April 15.
“That day arrives, as does Nick, but not with Helen.
“She’s on the end of the telephone, said Stewart, apologising to him, telling him she loves him, but that she needs her phone. “Why? We can’t possibly know.
“She was telling Stewart to do what Nick and Joe wanted him to do.
“Stewart was told he had to find Helen’s phone, take it to Broadstairs, and not to tell police anything until after 3pm.
“The timing of the phone call to police reporting Helen missing was after 3pm.”
Why keep router if trying to destroy evidence
“There is no evidence that there was no sim card in Helen’s phone, or that Stewart had removed it.
“The logical explanation is that the phone battery expired, and then it wasn’t switched on again until 1pm on Saturday April 16.
“It’s not right for it to be asserted that the only way a phone would connect to wifi but not the network was if the sim card had been removed.
“We know all Stewart had to do was turn off the router in Broadstairs for it to lose its log. “We know Stewart wanted to use this router as a wifi extender at the Royston house.
“The first step of using a router like that as an extender is that you do a factory reset.
“Is there anything suspicious or unusual about this? If it was intended by Stewart to destroy evidence, why is it that he had that very same router in its box sitting beside his desk in his study in Royston?”
“Why doesn’t the router end up in the tip as well?”
Helen seen in Range Rover like Joe's
“So when did Helen Bailey die? Is Mr Farmer’s evidence, the former cafe owner in Broadstairs, absurd?
“Is he deliberately trying to muddy the waters? He says he saw Helen Bailey alive and well in a car in Broadstairs four to six weeks before he gave a statement to police on July 13.
“Stewart said he saw Joe’s car when he arrived at the Royston house in February 2016. What car was it? A dark Range Rover. “What car did Mr Farmer see Helen in? A black Range Rover.”
Broadstairs evidence only given to defence at start of trial
“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.”
Defence - 'pretty rich' evidence was not revealed
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.”
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.”
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.”
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’.”
Names in husband's diaries
“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.”
Stewart in 'terrible nightmare' - jury told
“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.”
Wouldn't Stewart have come up with a better story is planning murder?
“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?”
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.”
Cess pit 'last place' Stewart would have put Helen - defence
“Can you, having analysed the evidence, conclude you have no doubt it was Stewart who killed Helen and Boris, and dropped them so callously into that cess pit?
“Who was one of the first people Stewart would have known would have been asking him the question of ‘where’s Helen?’
“Her brother John, of course. Who would have been one of the most anxious people to find out where she was? John.
“Do you really truly believe that Stewart could thus have gone on to put the person he had killed in the very place that Helen’s brother had been told, in his presence, would be a good place to hide a body?
“Really? Stewart might not have thought when he killed Helen that there was a possibility that John Bailey might have recalled that conversation?
“Yet still allegedly he was to dump her in that spot. It’s crazy.
“It’s the last place this intelligent man, if he had killer her, would have put her.”
Manhole cover was exposed for police to see
“If Stewart knew Helen was there [in the cess pit] and he was trying to conceal that fact, why did he not put her white Jeep over the cover to the pit before he called the police?
“When he called them eventually on April 15 and the first police officer arrived, that manhole cover was exposed for the world to see, to open, to peer into.
“This police officer said Stewart was helpful, gave full access around the house, and confirmed that on this day the Jeep was not in the garage obstructing any view of that manhole cover.”
No scent of Helen picked up by dog
“Why was no scent picked up by the dog, if Helen had been for any measure of the time lying by the cess pit cover, while Stewart struggled with the opening of that cess pit, in presumably broad daylight in the morning of April 11?
“Nothing was picked up by the dog because she wasn’t dead on April 19, or April 21, she wasn’t in the cess pit on the day. Only later, maybe on April 26, when Nick and Joe returned, was she then put in the cess pit.
“Maybe then was she dead already, but not killed by Stewart. Is that not a possibility?”
Stewart a real risk of 'serious harm'
“On his arrest on July 11, when he shouted ‘Jamie the garage door is open’ he didn’t know police were there. “He was only halfway down the stairs.
“He was then asking them where Helen was. Why couldn’t police have said to him then ‘there’s no body’?
“Stewart told you repeatedly he was advised by his solicitor not to answer any questions.
“What could he have said to police, without exposing others and himself to that very real risk of serious harm?”
Prison attack
“Remember Stewart was attacked in prison, it’s not something made up, it’s there in the admissions.”
Jury urged to 'be brave' as defence case closes before afternoon break
Addressing jurors, he says: “This is your chance. Please be strong, brave, don’t just dismiss the evidence that excavates Stewart from responsibility for this terrible crime, don’t be overwhelmed by the pressure and emotion of this ghastly case, please consider it, reflect upon it, and reach reasoned and true decisions, true verdicts according to the evidence.
“You will know if you deliver true verdicts that Stewart is not guilty of any one of the charges against him.” That’s the end of Mr Russell Flint’s closing speech. There will now be a break until 3.20pm.
Simon Russell Flint, defending Stewart, is continuing his closing speech. He is speaking about Friday April 15.
“That day arrives, as does Nick, but not with Helen.
“She’s on the end of the telephone, said Stewart, apologising to him, telling him she loves him, but that she needs her phone. “Why? We can’t possibly know.
“She was telling Stewart to do what Nick and Joe wanted him to do.
“Stewart was told he had to find Helen’s phone, take it to Broadstairs, and not to tell police anything until after 3pm.
“The timing of the phone call to police reporting Helen missing was after 3pm.”
Why keep router if trying to destroy evidence
“There is no evidence that there was no sim card in Helen’s phone, or that Stewart had removed it.
“The logical explanation is that the phone battery expired, and then it wasn’t switched on again until 1pm on Saturday April 16.
“It’s not right for it to be asserted that the only way a phone would connect to wifi but not the network was if the sim card had been removed.
“We know all Stewart had to do was turn off the router in Broadstairs for it to lose its log. “We know Stewart wanted to use this router as a wifi extender at the Royston house.
“The first step of using a router like that as an extender is that you do a factory reset.
“Is there anything suspicious or unusual about this? If it was intended by Stewart to destroy evidence, why is it that he had that very same router in its box sitting beside his desk in his study in Royston?”
“Why doesn’t the router end up in the tip as well?”
Helen seen in Range Rover like Joe's
“So when did Helen Bailey die? Is Mr Farmer’s evidence, the former cafe owner in Broadstairs, absurd?
“Is he deliberately trying to muddy the waters? He says he saw Helen Bailey alive and well in a car in Broadstairs four to six weeks before he gave a statement to police on July 13.
“Stewart said he saw Joe’s car when he arrived at the Royston house in February 2016. What car was it? A dark Range Rover. “What car did Mr Farmer see Helen in? A black Range Rover.”
Broadstairs evidence only given to defence at start of trial
“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.”
Defence - 'pretty rich' evidence was not revealed
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.”
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.”
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.”
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’.”
Names in husband's diaries
“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.”
Stewart in 'terrible nightmare' - jury told
“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.”
Wouldn't Stewart have come up with a better story is planning murder?
“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?”
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.”
Cess pit 'last place' Stewart would have put Helen - defence
“Can you, having analysed the evidence, conclude you have no doubt it was Stewart who killed Helen and Boris, and dropped them so callously into that cess pit?
“Who was one of the first people Stewart would have known would have been asking him the question of ‘where’s Helen?’
“Her brother John, of course. Who would have been one of the most anxious people to find out where she was? John.
“Do you really truly believe that Stewart could thus have gone on to put the person he had killed in the very place that Helen’s brother had been told, in his presence, would be a good place to hide a body?
“Really? Stewart might not have thought when he killed Helen that there was a possibility that John Bailey might have recalled that conversation?
“Yet still allegedly he was to dump her in that spot. It’s crazy.
“It’s the last place this intelligent man, if he had killer her, would have put her.”
Manhole cover was exposed for police to see
“If Stewart knew Helen was there [in the cess pit] and he was trying to conceal that fact, why did he not put her white Jeep over the cover to the pit before he called the police?
“When he called them eventually on April 15 and the first police officer arrived, that manhole cover was exposed for the world to see, to open, to peer into.
“This police officer said Stewart was helpful, gave full access around the house, and confirmed that on this day the Jeep was not in the garage obstructing any view of that manhole cover.”
No scent of Helen picked up by dog
“Why was no scent picked up by the dog, if Helen had been for any measure of the time lying by the cess pit cover, while Stewart struggled with the opening of that cess pit, in presumably broad daylight in the morning of April 11?
“Nothing was picked up by the dog because she wasn’t dead on April 19, or April 21, she wasn’t in the cess pit on the day. Only later, maybe on April 26, when Nick and Joe returned, was she then put in the cess pit.
“Maybe then was she dead already, but not killed by Stewart. Is that not a possibility?”
Stewart a real risk of 'serious harm'
“On his arrest on July 11, when he shouted ‘Jamie the garage door is open’ he didn’t know police were there. “He was only halfway down the stairs.
“He was then asking them where Helen was. Why couldn’t police have said to him then ‘there’s no body’?
“Stewart told you repeatedly he was advised by his solicitor not to answer any questions.
“What could he have said to police, without exposing others and himself to that very real risk of serious harm?”
Prison attack
“Remember Stewart was attacked in prison, it’s not something made up, it’s there in the admissions.”
Jury urged to 'be brave' as defence case closes before afternoon break
Addressing jurors, he says: “This is your chance. Please be strong, brave, don’t just dismiss the evidence that excavates Stewart from responsibility for this terrible crime, don’t be overwhelmed by the pressure and emotion of this ghastly case, please consider it, reflect upon it, and reach reasoned and true decisions, true verdicts according to the evidence.
“You will know if you deliver true verdicts that Stewart is not guilty of any one of the charges against him.” That’s the end of Mr Russell Flint’s closing speech. There will now be a break until 3.20pm.
DollyDiamond
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 43
I agree, Russell Flint's performance was 'amazing' - but not in a good way!
- Status