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

[BatFace]

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?

I found that highly peculiar at the time, and said as much on the Find Helen page. It got me blocked.

 

[Joely 123]

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’?

I don't find anything confusing Porkpies, apart from how Defence has to do their job in supporting the lies of a guilty one. Flinty knows IS is guilty - the Police know it, the Cadavar dogs know it, John Bailey and family know it .. it is just a question of IS knowing it .. and the Jury knowing it most of all.

 

[michelle230]

I found that highly peculiar at the time, and said as much on the Find Helen page. It got me blocked.

Maybe he was the "most eligible" widower that they were hoping to bag themselves. Maybe they didn`t want their illusions shattered. And besides what a frightening thought to have to consider. Better to close your eyes and block out possible truths (literally too as it seems!)

 

[ColourPurple]

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?

Yes so instead they used the written word of the fiance he is accused of murdering and dumping in a cesspit, as some kind of beyond-the-grave character reference for him, which I found absolutely sickening.

That Helen was conned into thinking he was a nice guy and sang his praises in her book is NOT proof that he WAS a nice guy... in fact it just makes him even more despicable to have killed somebody who loved and trusted him so much, and to have disposed of her body in the most disrespectful way.

I've never felt so angry and sickened by a defence in a trial before. I had to take some time away from the thread and away from the the detail of the defence, and I never even knew Helen, so Lord knows how her poor family and friends felt.

 

[michelle230]

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.

Annad - thank you - but thankfully I only stayed for a small part of the defence`s summing up and chose not to go back to hear any more.
TBH thinking about it now, I reckon the barrage of insults to their intelligence that the jury were forced to endure, (unlike myself who could just leave), probably irritated them greatly. On...and on...and on... And for what? Flint knew it was nonsense, the public gallery knew it was nonsense, the Judge knew it was nonsense, the jury knew it was nonsense.

 

[ColourPurple]

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.Which timings did the judge correct, I'm assuming them last being at Broadstairs in March not January was one. Did he correct the info about IS being better off financially if he'd waited till they were married before killing her?

 

[faybradshaw]

Feeling sickened and quite drained, as well, after reading as much as I could take of RF's diarrhea of the mouth sproutings... No doubt he gave himself a pat on the back for his strategical performance and his client must have thanked him for this too, in his eyes, a stirling performance. The Jurors, I'm praying, see the facts and evidence for what is gleamingly obvious to all, a guilty man by all accounts. Also agree that they will want to be seen as deliberating for a while and we'll get their verdict on Tuesday morning.


On a side note, I work for a long-term insurance co - which is self explanatory in relation to this trial!! We had a client whose wife was murdered. To cut a long story short, they had taken out life cover on each other's lives for 2 million, 6 months before she died (they ran a successful computer business together). We were all absolutely devastated for this husband (a happy, 20 year marriage by everyone's account). We had dealt with him over a period of probably 15 years and we all liked him! Well, it turned out that after 2 months of him being the grieving widower, the police arrested him and an accomplice on suspicion of murder. He subsequently confessed - he had lured her to an old warehouse on the context of them finding new office premises. He had hired a hit man to do the actual killing but somehow the attempt had failed and this husband was there watching and hiding, obviously to see that the awful deed was carried out. He stepped in then or maybe stepped out is more accurate, and finished the job by placing a plastic bag over her head and smotherering her with it. I remember my horror in thinking of her horror knowing that it was her husband who was murdering her...
Before the court case was heard, he was found in the police cells having hung himself with his shoe laces. Whether justice was served by him committing suicide, rather than facing life time imprisonment after being found guilty, I do not know. The Insurance company did not pay out on the policy he took on her life, but did pay a portion on the policy she took on his life - the proceeds of this was paid out to her niece and nephew as there were no children involved.
Coming back to this case, there is only one of RF's many theories, that might be plausible to me, that Helen, on that particular morning, was not in a drugged state when he killed her...

 

[Belgarion]

Annad - thank you - but thankfully I only stayed for a small part of the defence`s summing up and chose not to go back to hear any more.
TBH thinking about it now, I reckon the barrage of insults to their intelligence that the jury were forced to endure, (unlike myself who could just leave), probably irritated them greatly. On...and on...and on... And for what? Flint knew it was nonsense, the public gallery knew it was nonsense, the Judge knew it was nonsense, the jury knew it was nonsense.

Perhaps we do Flint an injustice. He is undoubtedly a professional and as such would surely realise that condemning a jury to over a 4 hour tour de force of obvious and at times inaccurate diatribe would irritate them to the extreme.

Maybe he had two aims?

Firstly to ensure that IS cannot claim a retrial on lack of defence

Secondly to insult the intelligence of the jury to such an extent it would push them towards a guilty verdict which even he must realise is the only correct outcome.

At the end of the day, he gets his money, has been seen to do his job and more importantly is not tarnished as being the architect of an obviously evil person walking free

 

[cheeseman]

Feeling sickened and quite drained, as well, after reading as much as I could take of RF's diarrhea of the mouth sproutings... No doubt he gave himself a pat on the back for his strategical performance and his client must have thanked him for this too, in his eyes, a stirling performance. The Jurors, I'm praying, see the facts and evidence for what is gleamingly obvious to all, a guilty man by all accounts. Also agree that they will want to be seen as deliberating for a while and we'll get their verdict on Tuesday morning.


On a side note, I work for a long-term insurance co - which is self explanatory in relation to this trial!! We had a client whose wife was murdered. To cut a long story short, they had taken out life cover on each other's lives for 2 million, 6 months before she died (they ran a successful computer business together). We were all absolutely devastated for this husband (a happy, 20 year marriage by everyone's account). We had dealt with him over a period of probably 15 years and we all liked him! Well, it turned out that after 2 months of him being the grieving widower, the police arrested him and an accomplice on suspicion of murder. He subsequently confessed - he had lured her to an old warehouse on the context of them finding new office premises. He had hired a hit man to do the actual killing but somehow the attempt had failed and this husband was there watching and hiding, obviously to see that the awful deed was carried out. He stepped in then or maybe stepped out is more accurate, and finished the job by placing a plastic bag over her head and smotherering her with it. I remember my horror in thinking of her horror knowing that it was her husband who was murdering her...
Before the court case was heard, he was found in the police cells having hung himself with his shoe laces. Whether justice was served by him committing suicide, rather than facing life time imprisonment after being found guilty, I do not know. The Insurance company did not pay out on the policy he took on her life, but did pay a portion on the policy she took on his life - the proceeds of this was paid out to her niece and nephew as there were no children involved.
Coming back to this case, there is only one of RF's many theories, that might be plausible to me, that Helen, on that particular morning, was not in a drugged state when he killed her...

That sounded such a horrible tale about the murdering husband that I was curious and had to google to find out about it. I assume it's this one in SA:
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/dead-wife-killers-sensational-tale-of-greed-52254

 

[flightpath]

Good! Thanks for that I'd hoped they were. And I was getting anxious as I remembered OJ Simpson!

 

[flightpath]

Strimmer is my man - always has been due to my conviction of a Guilty Widower who took advantage of knowing more about Widows' histories through joining a cohesive group of people who shared their true Grief. And .. he knew even more about Helen, because she is a Writer - and one cannot write a biographical blog without starting from the premise of Truth. We know Helen is the most open and honest person ever. She does not hide away behind rosy curtains of perception. She always wrote to the point whether it may have been embarrassing to herself or not. She shielded all others in their anonymity. She did not shield herself.
Her murderer knew everything about her before he created his relationship with her. He knew the size of her home in Highgate, and her inheritance from the Sinfield Company. He knew of her Author Royalties.
He knew what to say to make her happier, knew how to fix things she had an aversion towards. He knew how her mind ticked.
He did not have that ability within his own sense - he simply could join the dots together. (Sorry Helen)
She did not wish to visit Broadstairs after John - and guess who was there, allowing her to cry over a glass of red wine before he went out to collect fish and chips.
She was worried about her Gas/Electric bill - and guess who came to detect that her monitor was not properly connected.
She cried on their first evening outing - and he 'was happy' to let her return to her home. No expectations! Just apparent consideration!.
He knew her vulnerabilities - she had already described how she was a fast driver to a nervous driver.
HE DID NOT KNOW THE COLOUR OF HER EYES.

He had raided her book to use in his Defence of when she was at her most treacherous time in her life, after John S died - to copy her statements in her book of not knowing her own hands. This was NOT at a computer it was her way of saying she almost felt the hand of JS as she walked with Boris. Yes, she was dizzy - yes, she had panic attacks - and he abused this, her most frail moment of Grief to allow Flinty to grab and run with it.

YOU - murderer (possibly more than once) Mr Stewart have taken everything away from Helen in your Defence. You have put her family, John especially in his love of Helen in a continued torturous agony whilst you stood in Court under Oath and lied to protect yourself and your money. You were not ever there to protect your dear Sons - please do not pretend you were protecting them from N & J - displacing them, when they need protecting from YOU and your actions.

One thing you shall not ever do is take away the beauty of Helen and Boris - she is far cleverer than you shall ever be - and I do think it is now time for you to admit defeat. And show some honour to the women who gave you every opportunity towards happiness - rather than a bed in a cell.

Bravo! Very well put!! Exactly my thoughts too. "Softly softly catch the monkey" was IS method of getting and keeping HB.

 

[faybradshaw]

That sounded such a horrible tale about the murdering husband that I was curious and had to google to find out about it. I assume it's this one in SA:
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/dead-wife-killers-sensational-tale-of-greed-52254

Aggg, lost everything I wrote! Cheeseman, don't believe you found this on Google - yes, Barry and Lucille Nel in SA. ill print this out for my boss, who sold Barry the policies and went to Lucille's funeral. I did not know about her being shot in the head though.

 

[Florrie]

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

But he cannot say he didn't have adequate defence. Flint went over and above what he needed to do without once saying "my client is innocent". I would hope the jury are savvy enough to see that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Interested Bystander]

Perhaps we do Flint an injustice. He is undoubtedly a professional and as such would surely realise that condemning a jury to over a 4 hour tour de force of obvious and at times inaccurate diatribe would irritate them to the extreme.

Maybe he had two aims?

Firstly to ensure that IS cannot claim a retrial on lack of defence

Secondly to insult the intelligence of the jury to such an extent it would push them towards a guilty verdict which even he must realise is the only correct outcome.

At the end of the day, he gets his money, has been seen to do his job and more importantly is not tarnished as being the architect of an obviously evil person walking free

BIB

Whilst I would like to agree that this mornings message maybe Flint's game I have my doubts. Also I am not sure how he would not tarnish himself by risking that some of the jury may have been swayed by his oratory. I am a little more cynical and think he was grandstanding with the grave risk of allowing a murdering *advertiser censored* a chance to walk free. I very much hope I am wrong and you are right.

I do agree by covering all points he has reduced the risk of an appeal if found guilty.

 

[mrjitty]

Exactly. Beyond REASONABLE doubt. Not beyond any doubt.

The evidence that has been presented is absolutely enough.

My only concern with the jury is that they don't understand the power of circumstantial evidence too. But at the moment, I am choosing to believe they are an educated set of people. The alternative is not worth thinking about right now.

I also think the jury, having been present to see the sons giving evidence and seen the sons in court observing proceedings will have made their own observations as to the guilt of them in comparison to the behaviour of IS.

I think they will have IS and IS only in their sights for this.

Exactly

Imagine you ring the police and tell them your wife walked out on you a week ago.

They search your house and find her body hidden in the closet.

That is the Helen Bailey murder, reduced to its essentials.

I find it bizarre to say there is no evidence to connect him to the murder when the police recovered the hidden body, with evidence of drugging, and the accused provided two different and false accounts

Now in his defence we discover a 3rd one.

It was all an accident!

This is what lawyers call "wild speculation"

The prosecution need only prove to the evidential standard (not BARD) that Helen was murdered. To my mind this is clearly established as it is also the defence's own contention. In other words, this issue was not contested at trial.

So this is only a question of "whodunnit"

Ruling out the absurdity of Nick and Joe leaves only IS

In my opinion it is not open to the jury to speculate that it was some 3rd party.

 

[Cherwell]

Now in his defence we discover a 3rd one.

It was all an accident!

It's got more and more like Pistorius.

 

[Tortoise]

But he cannot say he didn't have adequate defence. Flint went over and above what he needed to do without once saying "my client is innocent". I would hope the jury are savvy enough to see that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There was this line at the end Florrie -

"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.

 

[Florrie]

I won't be happy until I have heard that word "Guilty" with the addition of "on all counts".



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DollyDiamond]

Perhaps we do Flint an injustice. He is undoubtedly a professional and as such would surely realise that condemning a jury to over a 4 hour tour de force of obvious and at times inaccurate diatribe would irritate them to the extreme.

Maybe he had two aims?

Firstly to ensure that IS cannot claim a retrial on lack of defence

Secondly to insult the intelligence of the jury to such an extent it would push them towards a guilty verdict which even he must realise is the only correct outcome.

At the end of the day, he gets his money, has been seen to do his job and more importantly is not tarnished as being the architect of an obviously evil person walking free

Yep, Old Russell Flint threw everything he had at this - including an alternative cause of death. It was an accident dontcha know - Helen COULD have taken an accidental overdose! Doesn't explain how Boris ended up in the cesspit but still... I suppose he COULD have fallen in while chasing a ball!

It was nonsense on stilts and I'm grateful to Michelle for her very reassuring eye witness accounts which suggest the Jury were well aware the Defence were taking liberties with their time and tolerance. Heaven forbid that turns around and claims he didn't have a full Defence - he absolutely did, with bells on!

Earlier speculation about potential pitfalls with the jury reminded me of a big news story a few years ago - I've searched for it for reference to no avail, I wonder if anyone else recalls it? An eminent British judge made headlines when he suggested jury trials would inevitably become a thing of the past, because nowadays people were so ignorant and uneducated they could no longer be relied upon to reach sound verdicts.

I wish I could find one of the many articles written about this at the time. The judge gave several examples where a jury had asked him ridiculous questions about the evidence, which demonstrated they didn't even have a grasp of basic common sense (some of these questions were unintentionally hilarious - and had understandably made him despair).

He believed Britain would eventually have to drop the Jury system and switch to a system of judges, as the general public simply wasn't up to the job of analysing the evidence and reaching an informed, intelligent view. A bit worrying isn't it?

 

[BlueMosaic]

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.

Whilst they have been ruled out, and are not on trial, the passivity of the sons is something I have found odd (not suspicious). Obviously one has no idea how well IS explained it, nor of the energy and intellect of the boys, but I have two sons (and a daughter) and if my partner disappeared they'd be scouring the country-they helped find one of my daughter's friends when she went missing (she was found many hours later with a group in a park) and my oldest even managed to retrieve a long lost laptop (of a girlfriend) from the back of a bus depot at the other end of the country despite repeatedly being told it couldn't be found. This was all whilst in full time work or education. We're all different, but there was no "kidnapping" story when Helen first went missing. It would have made sense for them all to be involved/go to different places known to Helen-of course, in this bizarre tale, nothing does make sense.