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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't deny that Russell-Flint did the best with what he had but it was pretty uphill, wasn't it?? Like the combination of "he'd never be stupid enough to hide her in the cesspit" with "if Helen had died of a Zopiclone/wine overdose and IS had shoved her body in the cesspit then that wouldn't be murder". I quite enjoyed the bit about how IS is only weird and off putting because of his medical condition, too.

Certainly RF did nothing to harm his professional reputation. If I ever commit a murder I might give him a bell.
 
Just to qualify what I mean by gaslighting and stonewalling:

Stonewalling shares some common ground with gaslighting.


Both are effective in blocking healthy communication, in particular, the sense of emotional safety and connection necessary that each person in the communication needs to deepen their mutual understanding of one another, in order to strengthen their relationship.


It’s in their intent that they distinctly differ. Stonewalling is a learned defensive or protective strategy. In general, the person who stonewalls is using a learned albeit ineffective way of expressing intense emotions to a loved one, which may be feelings of frustration, anger, hurt, disappointment to a loved one, on the one hand, or discouragement, emotional flooding, overwhelm or even shut down, on the other.


In contrast, the intent of gaslighting is more severe and offensive in nature.


Additionally, whereas gaslighting includes all or some elements of stonewalling, stonewalling in itself is not gaslighting.


Whereas the underlying intent of stonewalling is to express feelings of disconnect and insecurity in relation to the other, along with the underlying core fears this triggers, such as feelings of inadequacy, rejection and abandonment, etc., the underlying intent of gaslighting, as a form of thought control, is to tear down the defenses of another offensively. It is an aggressive act of one who holds a “might makes right” philosophy, and has a fantasy of himself as a mighty predator and other persons as potential prey.


Because of its intent, gaslighting is one of the most extreme and emotionally abusive.


It is the term emotional manipulation should be reserved for exclusively, that is, a form of thought control that is science-based, uses proven methodology to get into the mind of another, manipulate fears and core-needs, specifically, to silence, belittle, rob the other of any sense of esteem or worth, visibility or presence in relation to the other. In effect, to subjugate the other into thinking and feeling that their only purpose in life is to serve “at the pleasure of” the other, and most importantly, to act as if this sado-masochistic relationship is normal, but also to act as they get pleasure from whatever the master does to them.


At some level or another, a lighter version of gaslighting is used throughout our society in certain hierarchical relationship structures, such as parent-child. husband-wife, socially approved to be used by those in status positions, throughout our society, for example parent-child, teacher-student. not a science-based training many persons we know receive in their on the job training in certain careers, such as military, police, etc., in order to enforce controls and status.


Characteristics of stonewalling


Stonewalling is a refusal of one person to talk, interact or respond to another person they are living with, often married to, or in regular contract, in some cases, working together.


This slang term references a wall because talking to someone who stonewalls can feel as if they’re made of stone, literally, like having a conversation with a wall. They show little or no emotion on the outside, and often take pride in thinking of themselves as strong on the basis of showing no emotion (in truth, they’re stewing and brewing inside).


It’s an ineffective and counterproductive way of handling difficult emotions, ultimately a fear of fear itself. The stonewaller often holds a belief that perceives upsetting emotions, criticism, demands, etc., as dangerous risks or threats to a sense of safety they associate with keeping tight control of emotions (to avoid loss of control and overwhelm).


Stonewalling includes the below or similar defensive-response patterns.


Refusing to talk or giving the “silent treatment” to the other.


Saying as few words as possible.


Shutting down at any sign the other wants to talk about an issue or is upset.


Refusing to answer questions.


Asking for “space” (illusive…) from the other without explanation.


Remaining emotionless when asked to express feelings on issue at hand.


Offering no opinions.


Staying emotionally detached from any issues the other brings up.


Responding with, “I don’t know what I want” when asked to resolve issues collaboratively.


Agreeing to things only to get space from the other, therefore, not keeping “agreements.”


Evading efforts of the other to resolve an issue or agree to a plan.


Withholding information that risks evaluation or angering or upsetting the other.


Withholding affection.


In general, the intent of stonewalling is to express feelings of disappointment or hurt, and to do so indirectly, by withdrawing from any communications or the presence of another. They may also refuse to engage or participate in planned events or to keep agreements.


Though not always the case, it’s not unusual for the stonewaller to feel shut down, automatically at any sign of discord. In some cases, the above behaviors are also associated with persons who have experienced emotional and, or physical abuse, who need healing from a mind set, that has them trapped, living in fear and overly focused, worried, obsessed about not meeting the expectations or demands of the other.


In some cases stonewalling can be a primary means for the stonewaller to avoid what they most fear — conflict, criticism, confrontation — based on a belief, or an unrealistic expectation the stonewaller holds, that it’s their job to eliminate any signs of negative emotions or feedback or demands around them.


In other cases, stonewalling can also be a way to punish a loved one for something they did or didn’t do that was hurtful, often with the expectation they “should have known better” without using words to clarify what they want or what’s hurtful.


In some fashion or other, the stonewaller acts “as if” the other does not exist.


It can range or start as mild and occasional, and grow to a habitual, persistent pattern; and the duration can last minutes, hours, days or weeks, or longer.


Often, for practical purposes, there may be brief breaks here and there, for example, in order to coordinate essential responsibilities, or when friends or other family members are around.


In the words of Daniel Goleman, “Stonewalling sends a powerful, unnerving message, something like a combination of icy distance …and distaste… as a habitual response, stonewalling is devastating to the health of a relationship; it cuts off all possibility of working out disagreements.”
 
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. :(

Im a huge cynic and I'm glad to be. Even I didn't see the bad in my mates new husband (except I was staggered at how unattractive he was!) at the time. I obviously wasn't cynical enough at that point!
 
Probably completely O/T flightpath, but the film Gaslight was on TCM yesterday, Ingrid Bergman & Charles Boyer 1944.
Where the 'gaslighting' phrase began.
 
One thing that the more experienced sleuths might be able to answer or cast light on is that not once did Flint say "my client didn't do this". Whereas the Prosecution says very much "it was IS who did this".

Is that usual for the defence barrister to just cast doubt on the evidence without openly saying "my client is innocent of these charges/my client didn't do it".

Just wondering if Flint was giving anything away about his true feelings about the guilt of IS.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
“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 :)

Yes, I noticed that. It should say either:

Helen Bailey was murdered by Ian Stewart when they were both alone in the house, who then lied to her friends
or
Helen Bailey was murdered by Ian Stewart when they were both alone in the house, and he then lied to her friends

Most likely a reporting error.
 
I can't deny that Russell-Flint did the best with what he had but it was pretty uphill, wasn't it?? Like the combination of "he'd never be stupid enough to hide her in the cesspit" with "if Helen had died of a Zopiclone/wine overdose and IS had shoved her body in the cesspit then that wouldn't be murder". I quite enjoyed the bit about how IS is only weird and off putting because of his medical condition, too.

Certainly RF did nothing to harm his professional reputation. If I ever commit a murder I might give him a bell.

I'd strongly advise you against that Squamous, do hire someone else. Because if you proceed as planned, then we'd all know you did it and you might as well confess straight away.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Probably completely O/T flightpath, but the film Gaslight was on TCM yesterday, Ingrid Bergman & Charles Boyer 1944.
Where the 'gaslighting' phrase began.

thanks jessie, , sad I missed it, I love old classic movies will try To catch it.

found this, wonder how many HB would have ticked?


If you identify with these 10 signs, you’re most likely being gaslighted.
You are constantly second-guessing yourself.
You start to question if you are too sensitive.
You often feel confused and have a hard time making simple decisions.
You find yourself constantly apologizing.
You can’t understand why you’re so unhappy.
You often make excuses for your partner’s behavior.
You feel like you can’t do anything right.
You often feel like you aren’t good enough for others.
You have the sense that you used to be a more confident, relaxed and happy person.
You withhold information from friends and family so you don’t have to explain things.
 
One thing that the more experienced sleuths might be able to answer or cast light on is that not once did Flint say "my client didn't do this". Whereas the Prosecution says very much "it was IS who did this".

Is that usual for the defence barrister to just cast doubt on the evidence without openly saying "my client is innocent of these charges/my client didn't do it".

Just wondering if Flint was giving anything away about his true feelings about the guilt of IS.

It boils down to him saying "They can't prove my client did it." Speaks volumes, really.
 
There's a one-word slip in there.

Ok then, in the face of overwhelming arm-twisting (as in .. "if you know what's good for you, mate"), here it is:

... 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 ...

It reads as "... was murdered ... and then lied ...".
A one-word fix:


... Helen Bailey was murdered by Ian Stewart when they were both alone in the house, who then lied to her friends, police and family that she had gone ...

(
<<Er ... that's damn obvious, peter>> Ok, did i say it wasn't? ... :))
 
> If you identify with these 10 signs, you&#8217;re most likely being gaslighted.

Wow, powerful checklist there, thanks.
 
It boils down to him saying "They can't prove my client did it." Speaks volumes, really.

Thanks Cherwell, I thought as much. Always good to have some confirmation of that thought though. Yes it speaks volumes and I hope the jury pick that up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Speaks more volumes that he couldn't say Nick and Joe did it!

Ah well, as he said, they weren't co-operative enough to give their surnames, otherwise no doubt the police would have had them bang to rights by now, and his client would have been released from his "nightmare". :rolleyes:
 
Ah well, as he said, they weren't co-operative enough to give their surnames, otherwise no doubt the police would have had them bang to rights by now, and his client would have been released from his "nightmare". :rolleyes:

You're right, I admit I skimmed R-F's bullcarp as much as possible I've probably not fully picked up on a lot of it. :sick:
 
Do we have an accountant in the house or a tax specialist? It would be good to see a breakdown of what IS could inherit if he is found not guilty, assuming the trustee to the will pays up. As he said he would honour her written word although he knows he does not have to do this.

What if the trustee decides not to honour HB's written word, which he is perfectly within his rights to do (I think), and excludes IS from receiving anything? Can IS appeal or is the trustee's word final?

If he gets off and does not get anything (or very little) he is going to find himself in dire straights (I like this idea :happydance:). Scant punishment methinks for being a murderer.

I feel sure his Legal costs will wipe out most of his savings, leaving him with only his share of the house when sold. This may take some long time because I think most people would not happily live in a house in which there had been a murder. I know I wouldn't. The history of the house would likely reduce the value somewhat although as prices have risen he would probably get all his ?£450,000 back in time.

The only downside here is that his innocent sons could suffer too.
 
Ah well, as he said, they weren't co-operative enough to give their surnames, otherwise no doubt the police would have had them bang to rights by now, and his client would have been released from his "nightmare". :rolleyes:


Mustn't forget also, that either/or J/N shook hands when introducing themselves, had read Helen's book, knew Boris's name and knew IS was GGHW. Oops I almost forgot, was kindly enough to replace the cesspit lid for IS - how thoughtful. :gaah:
 
Must admit I skimmed a lot too, some of it was downright offensive.
 
I was playing catch up Cherwell, I got home just before 3pm. It was bloody painful I couldn't stomach it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
81
Guests online
2,401
Total visitors
2,482

Forum statistics

Threads
599,862
Messages
18,100,355
Members
230,942
Latest member
Patturelli
Back
Top