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

[Interested Bystander]

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.

I agree. I am hoping for 12-0 verdict but we can never, ever be sure until we hear that foreman.

 

[Evendor]

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.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

Do you mind me asking how you felt before hearing Flint's Closing Statement. Did it change anything for you?

 

[Ironside]

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.

For me it's all the lies he told which conveniently fit in with the evidence against him that convinced me he is totally guilty. If he told the police about Nijo once arrested and there was no trip to Broadstairs and no change to the standing order I think I would find it far more difficult to decide if he did it.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[Cherwell]

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.

All of the witnesses were problematic in some way. If she was out walking Boris later that day, why wouldn't she have returned her friend's phone call?

 

[Tortoise]

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.

I think that's more a failure to understand the power of circumstantial evidence, personally.

The judge would not have allowed the case to proceed if the crown's evidence was not up to the standard of proof required.

 

[porkypies]

Exonerates maybe?

exculpates?

 

[dalsglen]

All he's done really is given them a checklist for ticking that they can be sure IS is a psychopath who fooled everyone in his life.

He had it all, this 55 year old with no known history and more money than he needed, as well as a fiancee who loved him, and look what he did.

Oh I know tortoise, its just difficult listening to this crap! Hes throwing everyone but IS under the bus. Your last sentence sums it up really doesnt it

 

[mrjitty]

So I missed so much of the trial I can't catch up nearly 100 pages!

I just read this

He suggested Ms Bailey’s death might not have been unlawful, claiming that the author may have taken Zopiclone herself and then drank alcohol, which could have reduced her to unconsciousness.

What the hell?

How can the defence be allowed to suggest an accidental death when it is not the accused's own evidence?

 

[cheeseman]

Im a huge cynic and I'm glad to be. Even I didn't see the bad in my mates new husband (except I was staggered at how unattractive he was!) at the time. I obviously wasn't cynical enough at that point!

Your mate isn't a pediatrician in Scotland is she?

 

[BatFace]

So I missed so much of the trial I can't catch up nearly 100 pages!

I just read this



What the hell?

How can the defence be allowed to suggest an accidental death when it is not the accused's own evidence?

IKR? Either stick with the story, or admit your client is an inveterate liar.

 

[Tortoise]

Oh I know tortoise, its just difficult listening to this crap! Hes throwing everyone but IS under the bus. Your last sentence sums it up really doesnt it

Tell me about it. It's like rubbing salt into a wound and I don't know how anyone who didn't absolutely have to be there managed to sit through it. I'd have walked out, because I think it exceeded the bounds of decency, and also went too far to paint IS as something he very obviously is not.

 

[LozDa]

So I missed so much of the trial I can't catch up nearly 100 pages!

I just read this



What the hell?

How can the defence be allowed to suggest an accidental death when it is not the accused's own evidence?

That was exactly our question earlier today. I can't believe that was allowed to go unchallenged.

Alongside the concealment of the body in panic after accidental death suggestion.

I'm amazed.

 

[Cherwell]

Mr Jitty,

the defence closing was interminable. The Judge expected him to be finished yesterday, but he took up the whole of today as well, leaving no time for the Judge to begin his summing up.

 

[jenspired]

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/

Thank you for this IB - very informative indeed!

I grew up with my grandparents and remember watching an old black and white film where all but one juror thought the defendant was guilty but by the end of the film after much considered discussion they all thought not guilty.

It really made me think about the complexities of justice and how pertinent the saying "perception is everything" is.

Oh what a tangled web we weave

 

[Belgarion]

All of the witnesses were problematic in some way. If she was out walking Boris later that day, why wouldn't she have returned her friend's phone call?

Like the reluctant Mr Farmer who it is reported missed his appointed time in court only to turn up the next day (without his reading glasses) to inform the court he had seen Helen ‘for a few seconds’ driving a car when he was ‘walking on Charlotte Street’ only to later say, ‘he could not state what road she drove along’.

Mr Farmer volunteered the information he only contacted the police after being prompted by a reporter from the Sun and that it was “possible” that the sighting of Helen could have been sometime in May, April or March. Very precise!

Apparently the make of the vehicle she was driving was unlike any she owned but bore a remarkable resemblance to one allegedly used by her kidnappers. Are we to assume from Mr Farmer’s observations she had borrowed her kidnappers car to go for a ride.

Yet such is the desperation of the defence they laud such sightings of Helen as not fantasy, not informed guesswork, but actual fact, a reality.

I guess it’s any port in a storm when the defence ship is so badly holed it’s sinking fast!!

 

[Joely 123]

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.

 

[LozDa]

I think that's more a failure to understand the power of circumstantial evidence, personally.

The judge would not have allowed the case to proceed if the crown's evidence was not up to the standard of proof required.

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.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thank you for this IB - very informative indeed!

I grew up with my grandparents and remember watching an old black and white film where all but one juror thought the defendant was guilty but by the end of the film after much considered discussion they all thought not guilty.

It really made me think about the complexities of justice and how pertinent the saying "perception is everything" is.

Oh what a tangled web we weave

12 Angry Men? A classic.with an honourable Stewart. Jimmy

 

[Cherwell]

12 Angry Men? A classic.with an honourable Stewart. Jimmy

Henry Fonda! Sorry.

There was also an episode of 'Minder' based on 12 Angry Men, in which Arthur Daley was called for jury duty. He was determined to sway the other jurors to acquit the obviously guilty defendant, and eventually wore them down. The twist came right at the end when another juror casually revealed over her knitting that she knew the defendant.