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

[Alyce]

Judge's summing up, so far, all in one post

Hearing resumes
The case has been called back on. The judge is giving jurors a written copy of his legal directions.

Judge starts summing up
Addressing jurors, Judge Andrew Bright said: “The prosecution say there is overwhelming evidence that Helen Bailey was murdered by Ian Stewart when they were both alone in the house, and then lied to her friends, police and family that she had gone to Broadstairs and had gone away to escape the stresses in her life.”

Facts for jury to decide
He continues: “The case for the defendant on the other hand, was that two men called Joe and Nick were responsible for the murder and disposal of Helen Bailey’s body, and that he was too frightened by the men to tell the police. “The facts exclusively are for you alone to decide.”

Judge reads out charges
Judge Bright is now reading out the indictment to jurors, listing the charges against Stewart.

Do lies support case against Stewart?
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.”

Stewart felt he needed to continue the lies
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.

May be good reason for not mentioning facts to the police
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.”

Jury reminded that the prosecution must make them sure of guilt
“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.”

Helen Bailey murder trial closes for the day
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.

 

[DollyDiamond]

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.

True, although like all good barristers, RF put his own spin on his client's version - which at times involved misrepresentation of the known facts and some downright inaccuracies.

No matter, Judge Bright's opening was great and I think cause for optimism that his guidance will set the Jury on course for a Guilty verdict.

Please God Ian Stewart is now mere days away from being a convicted murderer who can expect to die behind bars.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thankyou Lozda and Alyce too.

Just catching up - didn't realise it had resumed.

I am so pleased that Bright managed part of his summing up before the weekend and in that sense out-foxed the Defence playing for time.
And he gave them a copy of his legal directions and he made it so simple for them. Slam-dunk.

Order and harmony restored . Big sigh of relief from me that we left the court on this note.

 

[jessie]

Thankyou Lozda and Alyce too.

Just catching up - didn't realise it had resumed.

I am so pleased that Bright managed part of his summing up before the weekend and in that sense out-foxed the Defence playing for time.
And he gave them a copy of his legal directions and he made it so simple for them. Slam-dunk.

Order and harmony restored . Big sigh of relief from me that we left the court on this note.

I've messed this up, eta before quote - no way - sorry.

ETA - I have been wondering throughout this trial if the jury members have been taking copious notes or just listening? What is usual as the only jury considerations I have heard have been on The Archers ? !!!
Apologies for my ignorance, but what would be Judge Bright's Legal Directions? Would it be a hard copy of his summing up or maybe directions for the jury on how to proceed from here on?

 

[cottonweaver]

I've messed this up, eta before quote - no way - sorry.

ETA - I have been wondering throughout this trial if the jury members have been taking copious notes or just listening? What is usual as the only jury considerations I have heard have been on The Archers ? !!!
Apologies for my ignorance, but what would be Judge Bright's Legal Directions? Would it be a hard copy of his summing up or maybe directions for the jury on how to proceed from here on?

here's an explanation from a judge Jessie:

The typed legal directions are identical to the oral directions and comprise both the ingredients of the offence and other legal directions (such as the Turnbull identification direction, section 34 inferences, good or bad character etc).

Generally, the typed version is handed to the jury by the usher at the very end of the summing up because I want the jury to concentrate on what I say throughout the summing up, rather than be tempted to leaf through the written material.

However, if it is appropriate to give the jury a series of questions or steps to work through, I include them at the end of the typed version of the legal directions and the usher gives out the combined typed legal directions and questions immediately before I go through the questions with the jury and move on to sum up the evidence.

ON BIB, we had a really good example released on another case, I'll see if I can find it, it walked the jury through: If you think this- you must decide that, if however you think y/z.... that was for complex cases - I'm not sure this case is really that complex so it probably wont need those step by step to a conviction.

and he goes on to explain why they are more likely to be issued, these days, in UK courts

Handing out written directions seems to have almost eliminated requests from juries for reminders or further guidance on the law.
Juries also seem to be reaching verdicts more quickly.
There has also been an increase in the proportion of convictions.This is borne out by an analysis of verdicts in my court over the last two years.

(Turnbull identification: Ignore that. It's where the identification of the defendant is an issue. Not relevant in this case. Section 34 is relevant tho , this is right to make inferences on silence/not disclosing etc )

 

[Cherwell]

Actually I would think what cotton refers (a series of questions or steps to work through) to would be given to the jury after the summing up, not before.
I was thinking that it would just be general instructions at this stage, stuff like appointing a foreman and so on.

 

[Joely 123]

And that's me gone until later this evening - need a break. Be good all! x

You need a BIG break, LozDa - thank you for your endless Court updates.

 

[Joely 123]

Thank you Alyce for the Defence copy. Hopefully we don't ever need to read that again! And it can go to the tip like IS's note from Helen. Ooops - there WAS NO note.

 

[cottonweaver]

section 34 - 37, someone kindly posted this last thread but I can't find it.

here's an example

If, having considered the defence case, the jury concludes that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant's having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination, they may draw an adverse inference.

from this passage. Bright already directed on the UL, presume there will be more to come Monday

- The judge must tell the jury that the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution throughout and what the required standard is;
- The judge must make clear to the jury that the defendant has the right to remain silent;
- An inference from failure to give evidence cannot on its own prove guilt;
- Therefore the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. The jury may not believe witnesses whose evidence the judge thought raised a prima facie case;
- If, having considered the defence case, the jury concludes that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant's having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination, they may draw an adverse inference.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/

the link is very long and involved but eg. there are other relevant points eg

To avoid the drawing of an adverse inference, some defendants will state that they remained silent because they were advised to do so by their legal advisor.

 

[BatFace]

The life insurance wasn't to cover the 1.2 million. Would have been a million short?

 

[TheRisenBishop]

True, although like all good barristers, RF put his own spin on his client's version - which at times involved misrepresentation of the known facts and some downright inaccuracies.

No matter, Judge Bright's opening was great and I think cause for optimism that his guidance will set the Jury on course for a Guilty verdict.

Please God Ian Stewart is now mere days away from being a convicted murderer who can expect to die behind bars.

You're right DD but that's barristers for you, they don't always fight fair and if he did overstep the mark Judge Bright would have intervened. It's a given he's going down and despite the Judge playing it with a straight bat I can see that when the jury find him guilty he will have the harshest of words in his sentencing with a sentence to match. There are so many aggravating circumstances in this most heinous of crimes he will impose the maximum sentence.

Everything that IS used in his defence will be turned against him as aggravating factors. Stewart asks why would I kill the woman who I loved when we had the most idyllic lifestyle? When I had my own money and independence. The judge will ask the same question of him as a guilty man and find the inherent answer abhorrent.

He's done his damnedest to made a silk purse out of a sow's ear with his defence but it will only serve to illustrate what a cold, deceptive, predatory, dangerous, psychopathic killer he really is with a concomitant sentence to match which will be even sweeter.

 

[BatFace]

I am just trying to make sense of RF's insistence that IS would lose up to a million if Helen died before marriage. He cannot deliberately lie about evidence.

 

[peter010101]

“The prosecution say there is overwhelming evidence that Helen Bailey was murdered by Ian Stewart when they were both alone in the house, and then lied to her friends, police and family that she had gone to Broadstairs and had gone away to escape the stresses in her life.”

There's a one-word slip in there (harmless, though initially startling ), on the part of Judge Bright or Tara (or my computer screen, though it seems to persist ).

 

[wolfcub]

the evidence that excavates Stewart


what ? as in digs him out of a hole ?


strange word .......wouldn't exonerates be better ?

Even the Defence is making Freudian slips...probably an indication of concealed knowledge.

 

[cottonweaver]

The life insurance wasn't to cover the 1.2 million. Would have been a million short?

Yes it's confusing reporting.
This is what we heard on the day of testimony

Helen Bailey had a Suffolk Life self-invested pension, set up two years ago, worth around £235,000. The named beneficiary is Stewart. On her death he would receive those funds. A £1.28 million life insurance policy was taken out by Ms Bailey to cover inheritance tax in the event of her death.

and judge said

The judge briefly deals with a couple of questions from the jury concerning Helen Bailey’s assets. He confirms that Stewart would have received the £235,000 pension fund and £1.2million life insurance pay out, separate to the conditions of her will.

 

[jessie]

The life insurance wasn't to cover the 1.2 million. Would have been a million short?[/QUOTE] respectfully snipped.


Not sure on this BatFace, but the house was jointly owned so no IHT on that, joint account also, no IHT.
I understand IHT would only be due on properties in Helen's name alone, and also accounts in her name alone.
Would this make the insurance cover that?

 

[BatFace]

That's such a helpful link, thank you Cottonweaver! This bit is interesting:

To avoid the drawing of an adverse inference, some defendants will state that they remained silent because they were advised to do so by their legal advisor. The defendant's statement that he was silent on legal advice is not hearsay provided that the purpose is limited to explaining why the defendant decided to remain silent. However, such a course will not necessarily avoid the application of section 34. In R v Hoare and Pierce [2004] EWCA Crim 784 the Court of Appeal held that when such an explanation is put forward, a jury should consider whether it was reasonable for a defendant to rely on such advice.
This principle was further developed in R v Beckles [2005] 1 WLR 2829 in which the Court of Appeal set out a two stage test for juries to consider before drawing an adverse inference:

1. Did the defendant genuinely rely on the legal advice, i.e. did the defendant accept the advice and believe that he was entitled to follow it? and
2. Was it reasonable for the defendant to rely on the advice? By way of example, a defendant may be acting unreasonably if he relied on the legal advice to remain silent because he had no explanation to give and the advice suited his own purposes.

 

[flightpath]

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.

Imho ho a relationship doesn't have to be screaming shouting arguing to be bad. Gas lighting and stonewalling?, , ! Bad relationships do not take the same form. Her brother hardly ever saw her and had barely met IS which speaks volumes. Her mother too. She seemed to have internet friends mostly. Al the witnesses for the love are IS witnesses. Well they would say that. I still think her rose tinted specs were coming off. How boring do we think he sounds? I think TLC wore thin, life with him was like living with an old man. Where was their social life? He struck whilst he still had a hold. My friend who was married very quickly to a similar man is to this day unable to tell how he managed to get her - and he was always looking for ways to get money from her and he got to marry her in Las Vegas of all places which if you know her you would not believe as it's a million trillion times removed from her. She was mesmerized into it. It was like waking for a dream. He's like iS in that he seemed charming although nothing to look at and presented as truly caring and kind.

 

[jessie]

Imho ho a relationship doesn't have to be screaming shouting arguing to be bad. Gas lighting and stonewalling?, , ! Bad relationships do not take the same form. Her brother hardly ever saw her and had barely met IS which speaks volumes. Her mother too. She seemed to have internet friends mostly. Al the witnesses for the love are IS witnesses. Well they would say that. I still think her rose tinted specs were coming off. How boring do we think he sounds? I think TLC wore thin, life with him was like living with an old man. Where was their social life? He struck whilst he still had a hold. [I] My friend who was married very quickly to a similar man is to this day unable to tell how he managed to get her - and he was always looking for ways to get money from her and he got to marry her[/I] in Las Vegas of all places which if you know her you would not believe as it's a million trillion times removed from her. She was mesmerized into it. It was like waking for a dream. He's like iS in that he seemed charming although nothing to look at and presented as truly caring and kind.

Thank you for that insight. I am a widow, was a youngish widow. Always thought my cynicysm and reticence was a fault but now see it as a bonus.

 

[cottonweaver]

That's such a helpful link, thank you Cottonweaver! This bit is interesting:

To avoid the drawing of an adverse inference, some defendants will state that they remained silent because they were advised to do so by their legal advisor. The defendant's statement that he was silent on legal advice is not hearsay provided that the purpose is limited to explaining why the defendant decided to remain silent. However, such a course will not necessarily avoid the application of section 34. In R v Hoare and Pierce [2004] EWCA Crim 784 the Court of Appeal held that when such an explanation is put forward, a jury should consider whether it was reasonable for a defendant to rely on such advice.
This principle was further developed in R v Beckles [2005] 1 WLR 2829 in which the Court of Appeal set out a two stage test for juries to consider before drawing an adverse inference:

1. Did the defendant genuinely rely on the legal advice, i.e. did the defendant accept the advice and believe that he was entitled to follow it? and
2. Was it reasonable for the defendant to rely on the advice? By way of example, a defendant may be acting unreasonably if he relied on the legal advice to remain silent because he had no explanation to give and the advice suited his own purposes.

That is very interesting BFace.
We are certainly getting ready for the rest of his summing up by trying to grapple with limits and exceptions.
It is very complex and so will be good when Bright spells it out further.

Bet your bottom dollar that soon after he is sent down for his very long stretch that he will also find some little loop-hole to attempt an appeal based on poor legal advice from, say, the solicitors - not including x.y,z in his Defence Statement.