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

[Moll]

Mr Russell Flint's new defence 'If, that is what happened, how does that make her death unlawful? Nobody would have killed her, murdered her. It would have been a terrible accident' is extraordinary, as many have commented. Do the lawyers present expect the judge to point out to the jury that they are not being asked to consider this?

Also, mrjitty, please could you explain what you said about the prosecution having to prove IS is guilty to the evidential standard but not beyond all reasonable doubt - I thought it was the latter. What exactly does the evidential standard mean? I thought that was for civil cases. But as will be apparent, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

Thanks Michelle. I always value your insight and input and, fingers crossed, you will be proved correct. You may have seen from an earlier post this morning that I think Flint may have been grandstanding, not unknown with barristers, with the consequent risk of an incorrect verdict. I am hoping your description of the jury knowing it was nonsense carries through to a guilty verdict, preferably 12-0. I am very happy to be wrong and very much hope your intuition is right.

 

[Tortoise]

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.

It was this part where he introduced another theory -

“Helen had no signs of any injury at all. There’s nothing to point in any way as to how she died. “What though if she had, as Dr Cary considered, voluntarily consumed both the sleeping pill Zopiclone and had also drunk alcohol?
“That Dr Cary could cause death, reduced to unconsciousness. “She could have, in her unconscious state, choked due to her airways being obstructed. “If, that is what happened, how does that make her death unlawful? “Nobody would have killed her, murdered her. It would have been a terrible accident.
“Yes, one thereafter might be guilty of failing to inform the coroner, preventing an unlawful burial, but Stewart can’t be guilty of unlawfully killing her if having found her like that, Helen was put into that cess pit."

Much as I hate it, I think it's only saying how can you be certain she was killed by anyone? But since Stewart denied anything at all to do with putting her in the cesspit I don't know if he can say that. It would be wild speculation and so unlikely as to be unreasonable doubt. Who instead of calling an ambulance would shove their fiancee and her dog in the cesspit and go about their day as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened?

And the immediate taking of her money kind of takes that off the table, as well as trying to sell her flat.

As well as Helen not knowing why she was sleeping in the daytime. It's a total nonsense.

 

[Cherwell]

I think Mr Jitty was just referring there to SRF's suggestion that Helen's death was accidental. He's saying that murder has been established.

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.

 

[Tortoise]

Wasn't that the Vicky Pryce trial Dolly?

 

[Moll]

The Cambridge News account's a little bit garbled, isn't it ? Perhaps it should be 'That, Dr Cary says, could cause death, if she was reduced to unconsciousness.'

(Referring back to Tortoise's post.)

 

[Moll]

I think Mr Jitty was just referring there to SRF's suggestion that Helen's death was accidental. He's saying that murder has been established.

Oh yes, thanks, Cherwell.

 

[cheeseman]

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?

Was it the Vicky Pryce trial you were thinking of?
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/51625/vicky-pryce-jurors-–-were-they-stupid-or-just-confused

 

[icemaiden65]

Wasn't that the Vicky Pryce trial Dolly?

That's what came straight up when I did a quick search.

 

[AngryWidow]

With respect Florrie, all of the points I have attempted to correct have been previously raised and discussed on this site, simply because you have not noted the comments does not mean that they were not made, and that any of my comments were "Bonkers".

You don't need to inform me that this is a horrific case, I was a friend of Helen's and spoke to the police within days of her being missing. I do not wish to prevent anybody's rights but I do want the truth and justice to be served.

 

[Alyce]

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.

Am with you on that IB.

It's one thing to put up a very strong Defence for a client, with very little and very dodgy, in fact hilarious, material....... that is doing a good job.
But it is quite another thing to manipulate the view of the evidence, misquote Helen's words and to offer up an alternative defence option for his client - one that the client had never talked of or claimed.

 

[Tiny]

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 Michelle. I do find it very telling. IS doesn't seem to have many friends in general.

 

[Tortoise]

Just a reminder folks

• Do use the alert feature (red triangle at bottom left of each post) if you think someone is posting outside the rules. Do not quote or respond to it. Moderators review all alerted posts.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

 

[Alyce]

Yes, one thereafter might be guilty of failing to inform the coroner, preventing an unlawful burial, but Stewart can’t be guilty of unlawfully killing her if having found her like that, Helen was put into that cess pit."


am guessing that's just a typo in the update feed that we received

 

[DollyDiamond]

Tortoise and Cheeseman - Brilliant work, thank you! Of course, it was the Vicky Pryce case. Just read up on it again - quite staggering. One of the ten questions asked by the jury (before the judge discharged them from their duties) was "What is reasonable doubt?" His reply?

"A doubt that is reasonable".

You couldn't make it up!

 

[BatFace]

Nobody was suggesting using the Find Helen page to post wild conspiracy theories, just to, um, find Helen. I asked on the page what had been done since the dog walk to raise awareness of her disappearance, and the reply was "We must respect the wishes of the family." I then replied "What family- do you mean Ian Stewart or Helen's family?" BLOCKSVILLE. It was strange that people seemed so cowed, that is my observation.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Am with you on that IB.

It's one thing to put up a very strong Defence for a client, with very little and very dodgy, in fact hilarious, material....... that is doing a good job.
But it is quite another thing to manipulate the view of the evidence, misquote Helen's words and to offer up an alternative defence option for his client - one that the client had never talked of or claimed.

I totally agree Alyce. I was shocked that the RF summing up contained not just one but many inaccuracies, including a blatant misquote from Helen's book! Throwing in an entirely new explanation of how she met her death was outrageous. I trust the judge will correct any resulting misconceptions on Monday.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Nobody was suggesting using the Find Helen page to post wild conspiracy theories, just to, um, find Helen. I asked on the page what had been done since the dog walk to raise awareness of her disappearance, and the reply was "We must respect the wishes of the family." I then replied "What family- do you mean Ian Stewart or Helen's family?" BLOCKSVILLE. It was strange that people seemed so cowed, that is my observation.

I find it quite astonishing you were blocked in that way Batface. I believe there are many uncomfortable truths regarding the way in which Helen met her killer and these uncomfortable truths must be addressed. I hope after Ian Stewart is thrown in prison where he belongs, people will seek to learn a few lessons from her tragedy. The internet and specifically online forums are the perfect environment for a predator to thrive. He was hiding in plain sight and that should worry all of us!

 

[icemaiden65]

Tortoise and Cheeseman - Brilliant work, thank you! Of course, it was the Vicky Pryce case. Just read up on it again - quite staggering. One of the ten questions asked by the jury (before the judge discharged them from their duties) was "What is reasonable doubt?" His reply?

"A doubt that is reasonable".

You couldn't make it up!

Harrumph - and what about ME Dolly? Are you spoiling for an argument. x

 

[cottonweaver]

Nobody was suggesting using the Find Helen page to post wild conspiracy theories, just to, um, find Helen. I asked on the page what had been done since the dog walk to raise awareness of her disappearance, and the reply was "We must respect the wishes of the family." I then replied "What family- do you mean Ian Stewart or Helen's family?" BLOCKSVILLE. It was strange that people seemed so cowed, that is my observation.

Pre July 2016 maybe even these words would have been described, at that time, as wild conspiracy theory Bf?

.......And shortly he very nearly got away with it. “A little while longer, had the police not on July 15 made that final search of that cess pit, her body may have remained in that pit, sunk to the bottom and decomposed. “In a few years they might have found some bones. “Stewart’s acting, his sadness, his insistence she had gone away, his electronic records he left behind, all showed Helen had just run away. Showed a riff between lovers.”

( Trimmer, closing argument)