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

[Tortoise]

I feel sorry for the police if by some remote chance IS is found not guilty as they then have to ‘find’ the real killers.

All they have to go on are the names of ‘Nick and Joe’ who appear to be a pair of wraith like entities who mysteriously drifted in and out of IS’s life completely unnoticed by anyone. Absolutely no living witnesses whatsoever to their existence, they are invisible to the extent of appearing merely to be a figment of the imagination.

More chance of the police finding fairies at the bottom of the Chief Constables garden!

Even Mr Cappuccino didn't see them with Helen when she was swanning around Broadstairs in their black Range Rover.

 

[flightpath]

Oops just realised that never happened! IS made it up but then he even lies about her saying sorry because that's how he'd got her behaving in reality.

 

[LozDa]

Thank you very much. Perhaps not what I really wanted to hear.

Could you please ask your housemate to listen/watch the video to the report on the will which was included in the Cambridge News.

This is where it seemed to me that he could get nothing.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-accused-set-12535484

I read the article to her and I have GREAT NEWS.

Because the will is a discretionary will, Tony Hurley has complete control over how much money is given to the named beneficiaries.

His statements in court about the fact that he would have honoured Helen's requests are irrelevant to what he can decide at this point. He has complete discretion over her funds and estate. Meaning he could, in effect, give IS nothing, even if he's found not guilty.

He may make some sort of monetary offer to IS to avoid any sort of contest to the will, but a contest would likely be very expensive and time consuming. Given that he would likely not have much money remaining, it would seem unlikely he would contest.

So... in conclusion, even if IS is found not guilty, Tony Hurley can decide to ignore Helen's request for IS to be the main beneficiary and as her trusted financial executor, he could, for example, decide to make Helen's brother the sole beneficiary.

She thinks it is likely that if there is any doubt in his mind over IS's innocence, the money will be directed away from IS.

 

[Tortoise]

I won't spend a second wondering what will happen if he is found not guilty. Not happening. No one will believe him.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I read the article to her and I have GREAT NEWS.

Because the will is a discretionary will, Tony Hurley has complete control over how much money is given to the named beneficiaries.

His statements in court about the fact that he would have honoured Helen's requests are irrelevant to what he can decide at this point. He has complete discretion over her funds and estate. Meaning he could, in effect, give IS nothing, even if he's found not guilty.

He may make some sort of monetary offer to IS to avoid any sort of contest to the will, but a contest would likely be very expensive and time consuming. Given that he would likely not have much money remaining, it would seem unlikely he would contest.

So... in conclusion, even if IS is found not guilty, Tony Hurley can decide to ignore Helen's request for IS to be the main beneficiary and as her trusted financial executor, he could, for example, decide to make Helen's brother the sole beneficiary.

She thinks it is likely that if there is any doubt in his mind over IS's innocence, the money will be directed away from IS.

You have made me feel much better. The thought of that cretin of a man getting getting off and everything HB owned I found very upsetting.

There is also a link to the write up here of the day's proceedings. Hurley is second witness on but is questioned much of the day.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416

My last question: Is there any way at all IS can appeal Hurley's decision.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I won't spend a second wondering what will happen if he is found not guilty. Not happening. No one will believe him.

I wish I could be as certain as you. We all think he is a murderer but we have no idea what sort of jury is in place. It would only take a couple of simple minds (depending on the judge's requirement for the verdict) to f++k the whole trial up.

 

[LozDa]

You have made me feel much better. The thought of that cretin of a man getting getting off and everything HB owned I found very upsetting.

There is also a link to the write up here of the day's proceedings. Hurley is second witness on but is questioned much of the day.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416

My last question: Is there any way at all IS can appeal Hurley's decision.

Yes, he can contest the decision, but it would be very costly and not likely to be accepted, as the point of a discretionary will is trusting the executor to make correct and unbiased decisions on your behalf.

:fireworks:

 

[BlueMosaic]

Oops just realised that never happened! IS made it up but then he even lies about her saying sorry because that's how he'd got her behaving in reality.

I still wonder if the ring and the wedding-or at least what was happening at Brocket Hall- was a kind of displacement -everyday life seemed not to be that great with the Widower, and maybe it was a form of wishful thinking. There was, however, no way that IS was going to turn into someone worthy of her, even if he hadn't been murderously greedy.

 

[Cherwell]

I wish I could be as certain as you. We all think he is a murderer but we have no idea what sort of jury is in place. It would only take a couple of simple minds (depending on the judge's requirement for the verdict) to f++k the whole trial up.

Can't see why he wouldn't accept a 10-2 majority. If it came to that.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yes, he can contest the decision, but it would be very costly and not likely to be accepted, as the point of a discretionary will is trusting the executor to make the correct and unbiased decisions on your behalf.

:fireworks:

:loveyou:arty::fireworks::applause:

 

[BlueMosaic]

Can't see why he wouldn't accept a 12-2 majority. If it came to that.

Would that be Nick and Joe who had crept in on the majority side?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Can't see why he wouldn't accept a 12-2 majority. If it came to that.

Have we got 14 jurists?

 

[Joely 123]

I've re-read the defence statement and the things that stand out for me are:

A mild mannered non violent man is more likely to drug and suffocate his partner than two punch throwing intimidating brutes,

A bank account holder herself is less likely to make mistakes accessing their own bank account than someone who can barely set up a blog in a box.

IS wouldn't need more than £2,000 a month whilst living with a partner who brought in a similar amount of cash but say she were to go missing ... he might just need a bit extra,

Being a widower does not mean you can't possibly manipulate widows, in fact it gives a greater insight into their vulnerabilities,

He lied, and lied and lied and lied. He told barefaced lies, he schemed, he plotted, he told lies to cover up lies. That sort of behaviour to be able to do it that convincingly to that extent in such a way that your own family are not suspicious does not come from nowhere, it's well practiced.

And Boris, no one but IS had anything to gain from killing Boris.

It will be quite something if it's the Boris question that convinces the jury that only IS could have done the awful deed, Helen's husband bought her that little sausage, it would be poetic justice that from beyond the grave John Sinfield and Boris the wonderdog should have a hand in that horrible man's conviction.

Perfect words, and a lovely post to read, Miss Twiddle, after the sick feeling of reading the Defence today.
Yes, it would be true poetic justice for little Boris to be one of the biggest slip-ups (amidst many) to be the contradiction to IS's 'Second Story' of N & J. Boris bites back, as does JS who ought not to have his business affairs and 'untimely death' mentioned. The latter being another insult to everything that is sacred to Helen.

And then we shall have Helen's own words who shall finally wipe IS out - as she jestingly said in her book (if he let her down, which he has done in every way possible before finally taking her life).

 

[Cherwell]

Have we got 14 jurists?

:gaah: You know what I mean. Corrected now.

 

[Interested Bystander]

This was interesting to read especially for those of us who are involved with commenting on their first proper trial. I am discounting the Pistorius trial as SA trials are so different from ours.

https://ukcrime.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/how-do-juries-decide-a-case/

 

[Joely 123]

Yeah but if you'd been lambasted by a minority for jumping in quick - would it make it harder to get out publicly .

Still doesn't fit with the wedding excitement though nor her personality - so scratch what I said ^ - just thinking out loud really.

I think you're right here cotton W - I believe Helen would have found it terribly difficult to 'get out publicly' - she also would have been continually confused between her lack of happiness and her appreciation within the new life with IS. She could conclude that it is her inability to let go of her love and life with JS - and this would alter her 'objective' view of the man she was going to marry.

 

[Interested Bystander]

:gaah: You know what I mean. Corrected now.

LOL:laughing:

 

[BlueMosaic]

Sorry Cherwell. Just being silly.

Thinking about Helen's family. We all know this is about her and her loved ones, and this weekend may feel a long one for them. Wishing them strength, if that doesn't sound presumptuous.

 

[Tortoise]

I wish I could be as certain as you. We all think he is a murderer but we have no idea what sort of jury is in place. It would only take a couple of simple minds (depending on the judge's requirement for the verdict) to f++k the whole trial up.

There would be a retrial.

I can't accept the possibility of a unanimous or majority vote for not guilty. At worst it would be (a perverse) failure to reach a verdict.

 

[Cherwell]

I think you're right here cotton W - I believe Helen would have found it terribly difficult to 'get out publicly' - she also would have been continually confused between her lack of happiness and her appreciation within the new life with IS. She could conclude that it is her inability to let go of her love and life with JS - and this would alter her 'objective' view of the man she was going to marry.

I think she would have - and did - put her "lack of happiness" down to not living in London.