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

[Cherwell]

I agree and perhaps if he is cleared the RSPCA will prosecute even if it's only to ban him from ever keeping an animal in the future.

No Green Mile mouse for him!

 

[Cherwell]

Any suggestion that women should take better care of their safety is met with sometimes enormous backlash like Who Are You To Take Away the God Given Rights of Women to Travel Alone?

Yes, I struggle with this attitude. Any comment like this is met with accusations of "victim blaming" nowadays.

 

[michelle230]

Let`s cheer ourselves up
IS`s reaction when found guilty?

I`ll go for lots of head shaking!

 

[Tortoise]

Let`s cheer ourselves up
IS`s reaction when found guilty?

I`ll go for lots of head shaking!

have you seen him get angry under questioning Michelle?

 

[Cherwell]

Let`s cheer ourselves up
IS`s reaction when found guilty?

I`ll go for lots of head shaking!

That's how he started the trial, isn't it? Yes, I can see him bookending it the same way.

 

[jenspired]

Let`s cheer ourselves up
IS`s reaction when found guilty?

I`ll go for lots of head shaking!

Might he glance at his sons and squeeze out some fake tears?

Oh what a tangled web we weave

 

[ZaZara]

Yes, I struggle with this attitude. Any comment like this is met with accusations of "victim blaming" nowadays.

The victim in that case would still be alive if there had been proper warnings, because she was a sensible and deliberate person and 'no friend of foolish acts'.

On second thoughts:
I wrote this thinking about the murdered pilgrim but IMHO this applies to Helen Bailey as well.

The least we can do is learn the lesson that they left us.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Let`s cheer ourselves up
IS`s reaction when found guilty?

I`ll go for lots of head shaking!

I agree. His shoulders might drop but the head shaking is most likely. Maybe both. Will you be there to watch it and shout Yes? I know one shouldn't but after this charade it would be very tempting.

 

[michelle230]

have you seen him get angry under questioning Michelle?

Not angry in the normal way - no.
A few occasions of wiping away tears at inappropriate moments.
A lot of facial/head movements (exacerbated by his illness I suppose)
Rapid blinking increases at difficult moments
Generally pretty emotionless and quiet
Speaks quietly (remember only one vocal chord)
No emotion in regard to what happened to Helen.
As per my post when he was on the stand - and bearing in mind he could say little in answer to the questions, expect for repetitious, non answers - many of these times his tone of voice had a indignant,sneering, contemptuous air about them.
He sits quietly in the dock and little seems to elicit much of a reaction. (Ben Butler he is not!)

 

[michelle230]

I agree. His shoulders might drop but the head shaking is most likely. Maybe both. Will you be there to watch it and shout Yes? I know one shouldn't but after this charade it would be very tempting.

IB - I will be there but whether I get a seat or not - who knows.
I would very much want to clap or call out, but have to remember that his sons are there. His poor, lovely sons.

 

[Interested Bystander]

IB - I will be there but whether I get a seat or not - who knows.
I would very much want to clap or call out, but have to remember that his sons are there. His poor, lovely sons.

It is going to be horrendous for them. Difficult to know how they will take it. Have they shown much emotion throughout the trial? Do they sit with anyone else for support?

 

[peter010101]

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".

While sharing the alarm about some jurors, i don't find the above question stupid (i almost said "unreasonable" ... ). On the contrary, i find the judge's reply disappointing, as the question deserved and could have been given a better one. I tend to think of it along the lines of "short of alien abduction" or "short of Great Aunt Nell being a closet Trotskyite all these years ...".

Once again in defense of the juror's question: one might certainly expect interpretations of "reasonable doubt" to differ across jurisdictions. Therefore some guidance on this term is to be expected - even if not asked for.

 

[Alyce]

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!

I seem to remember they also asked if they could use information that they knew about but which had not been introduced as evidence

:doh::doh:

 

[Tiny]

Yes yes Torty! I said that in one of my posts that charges should be levied with regards to Boris.The deliberate loss of life of a dog should warrant a long sentence.

 

[MissTwiddle]

Let`s cheer ourselves up
IS`s reaction when found guilty?

I`ll go for lots of head shaking!

I'll go for him exclaiming 'No wayyyyyy'

:giggle:

 

[mbmc]

I'll go for him exclaiming 'No wayyyyyy'

:giggle:

Not in any way [emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Belgarion]

Four and a half hours is still pretty gruelling. It's like watching a really dull film TWICE. Urgh- who'd be a juror?!

I recall that I read somewhere of a 20 minute rule when public speaking because after that the attention span and focus of adults drops away.

If correct there must have been a lot of time when Flint was talking to deaf ears!!.

 

[Belgarion]

I'll go for him exclaiming 'No wayyyyyy'

:giggle:

....... or revisiting his response to the police ....'you must be joking'

 

[dalsglen]

....... or revisiting his response to the police ....'you must be joking'

Yup, I'll go with that response too.

Then maybe Nijo will burst through the doors and do a merry tap dance

 

[Moll]

While sharing the alarm about some jurors, i don't find the above question stupid (i almost said "unreasonable" ... ). On the contrary, i find the judge's reply disappointing, as the question deserved and could have been given a better one. I tend to think of it along the lines of "short of alien abduction" or "short of Great Aunt Nell being a closet Trotskyite all these years ...".

Once again in defense of the juror's question: one might certainly expect interpretations of "reasonable doubt" to differ across jurisdictions. Therefore some guidance on this term is to be expected - even if not asked for.

I agree - in a previous discussion about this in thread 4 (long, long ago...) I posted this link to an article by Trevor Groves at the time of the Vicky Pryce trial, and he thought the judge was harsh.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...m-makes-the-case-for-the-defence-8505712.html

Incidentally I don't find the alternative he says judges are using nowadays 'you must be satisfied so that you are sure' any more helpful, do you? It seems almost tautologous.