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

[Tortoise]

Same here, but IMHO (see my previous post) the feeling stems from being manipulated, mainly by mr RF.

That is what it was manipulation, we've had enough of that from IS without his barrister doing it too, (what does it say about him?), he should be straight as a die.

 

[michelle230]

I probably read too many police procedural novels, but here goes...

When an adult goes missing there are some key factors for the police... what do they take with them, have they used their phone, have they accessed their bank account or used their bank cards anywhere... After a week or so of no apparent signs of life, they very quickly assume the person is likely to be dead.

The waters may have been muddied with Helen since early on we thought she had access to a four figure sum of cash in the house. We never heard much more about this so what happened to that info, where it came from and how they discounted it, I don't think we know.

As all good sleuthers know, the last person to see the victim and/or the partner is always the prime suspect. So LE will have been watching IS from the very beginning.

They can only arrest someone when there is enough information to justify it. I guess it took them that long to feel confident they had the right person in their sights, probably based on all the little pieces of info slotting together, from her lack of apparent signs of life, his story full of holes, the router data, Helen's family and friends saying there was no way she'd vanish and not contact anyone, the dog alerts at the house, the lack of sightings of HB and B, the presentation of IS (emotionless except when it came to his own discomforts, speaking of HB in past tense, going on holiday when HB could supposedly come home at any time etc etc). There may be lots of things we don't know about that were not strong enough evidence to form part of the prosecution case but were useful for the police's decision making.

Thanks for explaining that so concisely Net. We forget the many things being uncovered behind the scenes that we, the mere public, are unaware of. I remember the huge shock we all got on the first day of the trial when we discovered that IS had been drugging Helen

 

[Joely 123]

Has Flint not heard of tailoring evidence then?

I wish IS had behaved so well towards Helen and Boris as he did towards Nick and Joe.

HE followed them to the letter - even waiting until after 3 pm before he made the most unconvincing phone call ever in reporting a loved one missing. Such a cooperative person under threat and yet such a conniving, treacherous 'partner' when entrusted with love and life from a beautiful lady. FFS.

 

[Tortoise]

Michelle I meant to ask, does he only do his rapid eye blinking when Strimmer is speaking, or does he do it all the time?

 

[peter010101]

HE followed them to the letter - even waiting until after 3 pm before he made the most unconvincing phone call ever in reporting a loved one missing. Such a cooperative person under threat and yet such a conniving, treacherous 'partner' when entrusted with love and life from a beautiful lady. FFS.

The trustworthiness (to 'N&J') is made up;
the treacherousness (to HB&B) is real.

 

[Tortoise]

We could have a verdict on Monday afternoon!

 

[Moll]

I'm the opposite, I can't think how the jury could find him guilty when there is nothing concrete. Yes, he likely did it (70% sure), but is that enough? For me there's no forensic evidence to prove it was him and not somebody else who lived or had access to the house. The witnesses say she was alive after, which in my option then doesn't rule out the sons.

Your 'option' couldn't possibly be followed by the jury. Even the wayward Mr Russell Flint didn't suggest anything so far outside what the police investigation discovered. It's IS or Nick and Joe.

 

[Alyce]

We could have a verdict on Monday afternoon!

I'm going for Tuesday 12.30pm.... although would be happy to be wrong and see a Monday verdict

I think Judge B will take Monday morning to finish his summing up.
Then lunch.
Then send Jury out at 2.15 - 2.30pm. By the time they sort out a foreperson etc it would only leave them about one hour to discuss and I feel they may wish to be seen to take longer, in order to ensure they have covered everything. Even though I feel they will reach a verdict amongst themselves very quickly.

So Tuesday out from say 10.30 to 11.30 - but then they have to give time for everyone to get back to Court, so I see a verdict about 12.15 - 12.30

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks for explaining that so concisely Net. We forget the many things being uncovered behind the scenes that we, the mere public, are unaware of. I remember the huge shock we all got on the first day of the trial when we discovered that IS had been drugging Helen

It was all a bit confusing at the end of the defence or prosecution case (I can't remember which now), when it came out that IS had informed them that Helen had taken his zopiclone before his statement was served up.

But on the stand he said that it hadn't formed part of his defence because it wasn't relevant to her murder. So he can't use that oversight or failure of his defence team at least, to appeal.

 

[Joely 123]

RSBM

You need to check this one out Joely , a longer account of startlingly similar M.O. for the long con.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4141714/Woman-poisoned-husband.html

Thank you Cotton. Thank goodness there was an alert and prevention button for this woman and she is alive. IS has not got a a prefabrication of another life - an elevated past ( apart from his possible Qualifications). He is potentially a willing Widower from the past (we cannot say) - but IF he had come into Helen's life as a Divorcee, he would certainly not have his stash of £43,000 unclaimed from Diane's Estate - nor would he have £470,000 from his FAMILY home to put into Hartwell.
He had NOTHING without the support of Diane and Helen .. other than his compensation for £7000 for an injury. Poor Diane - my heart goes out to you too in struggling with a plausible life with this man.

 

[Tortoise]

I do wonder if the defence advised him to leave that out of his statement, because it may be an admission of sorts as to her manner of death. If N&J killed her it would not be relevant to the drugs in her hair.

Tricky one. Because of course the police charges are not going to say charged with murder by whatever method - drugging and smothering.

 

[porkypies]

It was all a bit confusing at the end of the defence or prosecution case (I can't remember which now), when it came out that IS had informed them that Helen had taken his zopiclone before his statement was served up.

But on the stand he said that it hadn't formed part of his defence because it wasn't relevant to her murder. So he can't use that oversight or failure of his defence team at least, to appeal.[/QUOTE

And maybe because according to pathology report, Helen had been ingesting Zopiclone since January which was before IS brought home his own Zopiclone which she supposedly then took from him and began her ‘self-medication’?

 

[michelle230]

I think jury will be totally fed up wth all
This by now. Frankly insult to their credulity and will be glad for this case to finally end so they can say Guilty and go home. And I imagine they feel as disgusted as we do.

They were. They`d had enough. It went on far too long, was monotonous and a complete waste of everyone`s time.

 

[Tortoise]

And maybe because according to pathology report, Helen had been ingesting Zopiclone since January which was before IS brought home his own Zopiclone which she supposedly then took from him and began her ‘self-medication’?

There was even mention that it could have been in her hair in December.

I'd like to know if earlier portions of her hair were tested, or if they were guided by when he got his latest prescription.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm going for Tuesday 12.30pm.... although would be happy to be wrong and see a Monday verdict

I think Judge B will take Monday morning to finish his summing up.
Then lunch.
Then send Jury out at 2.15 - 2.30pm. By the time they sort out a foreperson etc it would only leave them about one hour to discuss and I feel they may wish to be seen to take longer, in order to ensure they have covered everything. Even though I feel they will reach a verdict amongst themselves very quickly.

So Tuesday out from say 10.30 to 11.30 - but then they have to give time for everyone to get back to Court, so I see a verdict about 12.15 - 12.30

I was just remembering back to when I was a juror and the judge gave his summing up.

He asked us not to take notes or look through his handout, but to just look at him while he was speaking, to make sure he had our full attention.

He said it was all in the notes and we could refer to them later. He then proceeded to speak so fast as he went through the whole of the evidence it was almost funny. Like a recording on fast forward. Couldn't have taken notes if we'd wanted to. He knew it was what we had just sat through already and it was just procedure.

Directions was a bit different, he took his time over those to make it all very clear.

So you get to make notes while each witness is giving evidence. Then more notes during the barristers' summing up, then you hear it all over again with the judge. I hope the judge can fit it all into a morning.

 

[Joely 123]

I am going to bed on a note of prayer for John Bailey, Oliver and Jamie - and hoping that Eileen did not need to listen to the Defence, and that as I would expect John B has looked after his Mum throughout this vile trial of lies, and shock on how one can care so little for their most important love. How greed, cruelty, deception can even be under the question of a fair trial, and 12 Jury, when you know your Sister so well - from the moment you were siblings together, that she was deceived through the goodness of her heart.

I am so sorry for Helen's family. I am sorry for IS's family. BUT I cannot feel sorry for IS .. I may have had a moment of consideration towards him, if he were living in hell - without his Sons cared for .. with a terrible Step Mother who fed them nothing.
I loathe him most for his slurring of Helen rather than accepting GUILY.

 

[michelle230]

It was all a bit confusing at the end of the defence or prosecution case (I can't remember which now), when it came out that IS had informed them that Helen had taken his zopiclone before his statement was served up.

But on the stand he said that it hadn't formed part of his defence because it wasn't relevant to her murder. So he can't use that oversight or failure of his defence team at least, to appeal.

Yes but it was also pointed out that his statement was given in very late which gave him time to study every aspect of the prosecution`s case so he could try to cover every possible angle. Hence the mad story.
Also there were quite a number of incorrect timings as noted by the Judge (and by you amazing guys!)but he didn`t seem to feel these were important in the whole scheme of things.
I have learnt a lot about the seemingly ridiculous parts of a trial by jury. Thanks to people on here and from people at the actual court, I understand it is really going through the motions so that no-one can complain later of an unfair trial.
I understand this particularly when compared to the original Ben Butler trial. And for those of us who followed that, we know the result of not following the procedure to the last letter.
As far as those attending court feel - "feel" is actually the wrong word - * know *, those far better placed than me to understand the way the system works, are totally calm and assured in their expectations. They are neither troubled, nor worried by the defence`s summing up over the past two days.
I briefly saw a post when scanning, about when the jury will go out and verdict back. I agree with the poster (was it you?) who said verdict Tuesday before 12 o`clock. I guess they have to be seen to be considering all that has been presented to them , even though they could probably leave the court room to "deliberate", go through the swing doors, down the stairs - or where ever they go - and turn around and come straight back up the stairs without pausing!

 

[michelle230]

Did anyone else find it interesting that despite no-one having a "bad word" to say about IS, and how so many on the bereavement boards jumped on, ( and banned) anyone who dared to tentatively suggest a closer look should be taken with regard to him - and what a wonderful man he is, not * one * person has been prepared to stick their neck out for him and give this man a character reference?

 

[Tortoise]

Did anyone else find it interesting that despite no-one having a "bad word" to say about IS, and how so many on the bereavement boards jumped on, ( and banned) anyone who dared to tentatively suggest a closer look should be taken with regard to him - and what a wonderful man he is, not * one * person has been prepared to stick their neck out for him and give this man a character reference?

Very true, but then again I've followed quite a few trials and I don't remember ever seeing that happen. I did remember thinking there were a lot of acquaintances who said they were shocked, and I wondered at the time what value they were to the prosecution's case, and then there was Mr Priest, who gave him a glowing report. Then again Priest seemed to be at his beck and call before the arrest.

 

[Annad]

Yes but it was also pointed out that his statement was given in very late which gave him time to study every aspect of the prosecution`s case so he could try to cover every possible angle. Hence the mad story.
Also there were quite a number of incorrect timings as noted by the Judge (and by you amazing guys!)but he didn`t seem to feel these were important in the whole scheme of things.
I have learnt a lot about the seemingly ridiculous parts of a trial by jury. Thanks to people on here and from people at the actual court, I understand it is really going through the motions so that no-one can complain later of an unfair trial.
I understand this particularly when compared to the original Ben Butler trial. And for those of us who followed that, we know the result of not following the procedure to the last letter.
As far as those attending court feel - "feel" is actually the wrong word - * know *, those far better placed than me to understand the way the system works, are totally calm and assured in their expectations. They are neither troubled, nor worried by the defence`s summing up over the past two days.
I briefly saw a post when scanning, about when the jury will go out and verdict back. I agree with the poster (was it you?) who said verdict Tuesday before 12 o`clock. I guess they have to be seen to be considering all that has been presented to them , even though they could probably leave the court room to "deliberate", go through the swing doors, down the stairs - or where ever they go - and turn around and come straight back up the stairs without pausing!

Thanks Michelle for today's summary. I found it unbearable to read the defence summary and skimmed most of it here at WS. It must have been excruciating to have to listen to it in person. We at this end can't tell if the jury is buying RF "stories" and I'm glad that all RF seemed to accomplish was to annoy everyone.

What I find hard to believe is the direct lies RF told - that IS would have inherited more money if they had married and that there was no dog evidence! And also to introduce yet a another version of event, that he might have been covering up an accidental death. How many versions of the "truth" are the defence allowed to produce?


Thanks again Michelle for your court descriptions, I feel more confident now that RF was not that brilliant at convincing the jury of IS's innocence and will not stress now over the weekend.

Edit: Also thanks to LozDa for her updates, it must have been unpleasant.