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

[maud]

BIB
Interesting observation about the courts but surely he didn't think a different court would make a difference to IS? I mean, this isn't exactly a borderline case?

No Moll, in his view IS is "as guilty as sin" and he cannot conceive of him walking away with an acquittal. (I was of course not surprised to hear this, but very pleased.)

He was speaking more generally, giving the likely overview of a defence barrister who knows the evidence is very much stacked up against his client.

 

[Moll]

No Moll, in his view IS is "as guilty as sin" and he cannot conceive of him walking away with an acquittal. (I was of course not surprised to hear this, but very pleased.)

He was speaking more generally, giving the likely overview of a defence barrister who knows the evidence is very much stacked up against his client.

Good! Thanks, Maud.

 

[Florrie]

No Moll, in his view IS is "as guilty as sin" and he cannot conceive of him walking away with an acquittal. (I was of course not surprised to hear this, but very pleased.)

He was speaking more generally, giving the likely overview of a defence barrister who knows the evidence is very much stacked up against his client.

That's a relief to hear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Squamous]

I find it interesting to think about how the last few days might have looked if Strimmer was defending and Russell-Flint prosecuting. I like to think the trusty Strimmer wouldn't have sunk quite so low in his comments but I bet that SRF would have come up with a mind blowing prosecution closing!

 

[peter010101]

personally I'd find it much more satisfying if the Nick and Joe who were paraded in court sued the backside off him for the stress and trauma of him linking them erroneously and intentionally to a murder they had nothing to do with!

I wonder whether 'witnesses' of that kind can be compelled to appear? Anyway, as they were called by the Prosecution, presumably using their (first) names is the only thing they could blame IS for! (On the other hand, his ridiculous persistance with a not-guilty plea is the indirect cause of their inconvenience.)

All that depends of course on a guilty verdict. I'm a pessimist by nature but surely he has to be?

... guilty, or found guilty?
(Yes to both, i'm sure.)

 

[icemaiden65]

Whatever you do J, shut that GARAGE DOOR!!

Oh Tort! I almost said the same earlier when discussion was going on about what IS's reaction would be to being found guilty as a cat with the budgie in its mouth (sorry cat lovers!). Thanks for the smile.

 

[SweetCinnamon]

Were beginning to fall from her eyes. Small hints about being fed up providing TLC etc to a friend

 

[Lovinnen]

I wonder whether 'witnesses' of that kind can be compelled to appear?



... guilty, or found guilty?
(Yes to both, i'm sure.)

I think they can. I was once cited to appear as a witness bizarrely imo to an assault case where I had seen nothing as I was at the loo at the time it happened at a football match.
I was told if I didn't, I could be done for contempt!
I was annoyed at the waste of money and time

 

[BlueMosaic]

O/T

I've just come back out the other side of the rabbit hole. Amazing thread - just goes to show that what we do on these threads, amongst the chatter and banter, is important. It's important to show the families and friends of the victims that they're not alone and that we care.

The people that go out and search are just amazing, selfless beings.

Just another reason not to be silenced by those who don't understand what the purpose of this site is.

My husband does a lot of solo long distance walks (Borders Abbeys this weekend, walking all Saturday night). Think it's slightly crazy, even though he goes well prepared (has worked at both North and South poles) and it does worry me when I haven't heard for a while. My worst case imaginary scenario is to call the police but I know most locals in those areas are observant and would report anything they saw amiss.

 

[Florrie]

I've read all through the Susan McClean thread. Oh my goodness what a fantastic site this is. A member living locally to where she disappeared who refused to give up the search until she was found.
I know it was a sad ending but at least she was found and the family have an answer. Until then it's hard to begin recovering (if you ever can after such a loss).



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[pinklilies]

I've read all through the Susan McClean thread. Oh my goodness what a fantastic site this is. A member living locally to where she disappeared who refused to give up the search until she was found.
I know it was a sad ending but at least she was found and the family have an answer. Until then it's hard to begin recovering (if you ever can after such a loss).



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The local lady, HippyHippy was amazing wasn't she. Her dog ran off one day on one of her searches. He was barking and she couldn't get to him. He came back with 'something' on him. Before she managed to clean him up it had transferred on to his blanket. The police tested the blanket and ruled it out. But it was a big coincidence that Susan was found in that area where her dog had run off.

I know Susan has her own thread and we should have discussed it there but there's nothing much going on here today and I'm sure Helen wouldn't mind.

 

[BatFace]

It's all going to be over tomorrow, isn't it? Well, perhaps we will be talking about it for a bit longer, but it will be strange not to have you all here. I'll miss Helen too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Moll]

I'm still pondering...
Here's another legal question that's been bothering me, apropos Mr RF's rogue defence of 'maybe it was an accident' - are judges allowed to interrupt closing statements? Or do they let them run (as Judge Bright appeared to do here) and then - as I hope will happen - mention them in their own summing up?

 

[jenspired]

It's all going to be over tomorrow, isn't it? Well, perhaps we will be talking about it for a bit longer, but it will be strange not to have you all here. I'll miss Helen too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Perhaps we could reconvene on April 11th to remember Helen & Boris and discuss any post-trial developments. Let's also be inspired by this post:

Oh what a tangled web we weave

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]Trimmer: “Did you drop the dog alive into the pit?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Stewart: “Certainly not.”

Interesting little exchange there.

Trimmer wasn't asking if he put Boris in the pit, the emphasis in his question was on Boris being alive at the time.

If Stewart didn't do it, one could reasonably expect him to answer 'I didn't put Boris in the pit'. It seems he was caught out, and he answered to the 'alive' part.

Denials like this one (if it's been reported verbatim) aren't reliable. The word 'certainly' next to the word 'not' actually weakens the denial.

'No' or 'I didn't do it' are the most reliable denials there are, when analysing for deception. Additional words like certainly are a sales job.

Great question from Trimmer. [/FONT]

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]His trial was previously told by Ms Bailey's brother, John, that she had once joked to him and Stewart the cesspit was a "good place to hide a body".
Mr Russell Flint said: "Ian Stewart might not have thought, having killed Helen Bailey, there was just a possibility that John Bailey might recall that conversation?
"He still decided to go and dump her in that very spot? John Bailey having been told of that a year or so before?[/FONT]

http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/n...ilty-helen-bailey-murder-trial-told-1-8396566

John Bailey was at the house in August 2013.

I get really cross with this kind of deception by barristers. It was almost 3 years before, and this was what Stewart said in his evidence -

[FONT=&quot]“I remember John Bailey being there [at the house] and showing him round the house, but I don’t remember Helen making the comment about the cess pit being a good place to hide a body.[/FONT]

 

[BatFace]

John Bailey was at the house in August 2013.

I get really cross with this kind of deception by barristers. It was almost 3 years before, and this was what Stewart said in his evidence -

Yes, it's a very self-serving distortion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[LozDa]

Interestingly, I went back to this article and thought that the first comment on it sounds just like someone we are all now very familiar with.

Nick Joe Dave... Mike?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...or-51-missing-two-weeks.html#comments-3554692

 

[Interested Bystander]

All fascinating and very interesting stuff, Tortoise. My only worry is that IS's grammar is weak and he often uses responses which show poor syntax. How does one allow for that? When one listens to him, despite his professed excellence in a certain subject indicating intelligence (physics - 1st Class Hons), his grammar lets him down badly.

 

[mrjitty]

Is Mr Trimmer likely to be complaining to the judge about this dirty underhand tactic, then?

Personally I think there should be a direction from the Judge

If defence runs a passive defence where the accused does not testify then the defence can legitimately query whether the "unlawful element" has been proved

But IMO where the defence suggests accident contrary to the direct evidence of the accused, the Judge should invite the jury to make an adverse inference in my view.

Afterall, only the accused has direct knowledge of whether it was an accident.

Therefore he should not be able to rely on this if he testifies it was not an accident.

Look at it this way

The defence could have framed its entire case around accident as opposed to Nick and Joe

The fact that the accused has not done that requires an adverse inference - i..e that it was not an accident.

Again apologies if this is esoteric but I feel this is farcical.

And for the Pistorius trial veterans, this is indeed exactly the sort of farce that helped him get off lightly.