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

[LozDa]

Im just about to start down the Susan McLean rabbit hole but tried searching the threads for where the case was mentioned before with no luck. What was the reason for the must-read? In relation to this case or just a general must-read?

Just wonderin'

 

[Lovinnen]

It's not just you, but the more cases you start to follow and see go into different sections of the forum, the more the endless threads and areas make sense and are therefore navigable. I still have to subscribe to individual threads via the website rather than Tapatalk, but if you subscribe to boards (such as UK missing etc) then you start to see individual threads being linked that you can subscribe via Tapatalk.

It is tough going at first and I'm sure most people initially binge through lots and lots of cases and also subscribe to lots of threads, but then eventually you naturally end up following one or two cases in great detail and maybe glance over a few others before deleting subscriptions like crazy after realising you're only interested in those one or two right now. Otherwise it's overload!

Obviously, that's all from my experience, but I've heard others mention similar saying they've been busy on another case etc. So I should think it's a similar path for many

The first time you follow a major case and see a single thread be broken off into sub-threads and sections, that's tough to get used to! I am still not entirely sure about that for coherency reasons, but understand why it's done.

Stick with it; it will become clearer.


I have just typed all that and then realised you are talking about the site being unresponsive, not hard to navigate. But I'm posting my response anyway because 1) whatevs and 2) that's how I roll.

:laughing:

I'm glad you posted it LozDa as it answers questions for me that I've been too embarrassed to ask thinking I was just thick lol. Ach might as well as one thick question either. I can't find a UK missing forum. Can you point me in its direction? Pretty please? I came here due to the Corrie McKeague and Helen Bailey cases but just did a name search for them.
Thanks for the info

 

[LozDa]

I'm glad you posted it LozDa as it answers questions for me that I've been too embarrassed to ask thinking I was just thick lol. Ach might as well as one thick question either. I can't find a UK missing forum. Can you point me in its direction? Pretty please? I came here due to the Corrie McKeague and Helen Bailey cases but just did a name search for them.
Thanks for the info

You're welcome! I'm not a Luddite by any means but for the longest time on this board, I stared at the threads and wondered what merry hell I had stepped into [emoji23]


https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?sh...m/forums/showthread.php?t=208623&share_type=t

I'm hoping that works for Tapatalk users, but if not, use the search function to look for:

United Kingdom Crime Cases - Links to cases on Websleuths *No Discussion*

Once a UK post is shared, it will get posted up there.

Or should do anyway [emoji6]

 

[mrjitty]

It was this part where he introduced another theory -



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.

Yeah - that peeves me that accident theory because I think Counsel is pulling a fast one in terms of evidential procedure.

This can get esoteric so apologies in advance.

Yes Prosecution must prove death by unlawful killing. By extension this means death by accident must be disproved. If the jury is uncertain on that point it must acquit.

BUT

While it would be legit for Counsel to run a passive defence where he simply invites the Prosecution to prove its case and throw mud against the wall. "What about an accident!" ...

... the trouble with this approach is evidential. IS obviously knows whether it was an accident or not.

Because IS lied in his interviews you are now in big trouble either way whether you call him or not. But at least it is possible. But he would have to testify to an accident, or not testify.

What I do not believe you can do is advance multiple mutually exclusive theories and challenge the prosecution to disprove them all.

Counsel led positive evidence of murder by Nick and Joe.

I don't see that he can now legitimately undermine his clients own testimony with a 3rd version even if it might be true.

To me it is not worthy of serious consideration.

If the accused has 3 versions, then we are past the point of giving him the benefit of the doubt

 

[mbmc]

Im just about to start down the Susan McLean rabbit hole but tried searching the threads for where the case was mentioned before with no luck. What was the reason for the must-read? In relation to this case or just a general must-read?

Just wonderin'

I had mentioned it in relation to some criticism of WS, but other members have also.

Susan's thread imo shows the dedication and caring nature of members here, heartwarming, albeit a tragic outcome for dear Susan, I think of her often, RIP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Moll]

Im just about to start down the Susan McLean rabbit hole but tried searching the threads for where the case was mentioned before with no luck. What was the reason for the must-read? In relation to this case or just a general must-read?

Just wonderin'

I followed the link Alyce gave
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...t=susan+mclean

Very interesting and a credit to the forum, rather than directly relevant to this case, I thought, as there was no foul play. I had to skip a lot as it's quite long.

 

[Moll]

Yeah - that peeves me that accident theory because I think Counsel is pulling a fast one in terms of evidential procedure.

This can get esoteric so apologies in advance.

Yes Prosecution must prove death by unlawful killing. By extension this means death by accident must be disproved. If the jury is uncertain on that point it must acquit.

BUT

While it would be legit for Counsel to run a passive defence where he simply invites the Prosecution to prove its case and throw mud against the wall. "What about an accident!" ...

... the trouble with this approach is evidential. IS obviously knows whether it was an accident or not.

Because IS lied in his interviews you are now in big trouble either way whether you call him or not. But at least it is possible. But he would have to testify to an accident, or not testify.

What I do not believe you can do is advance multiple mutually exclusive theories and challenge the prosecution to disprove them all.

Counsel led positive evidence of murder by Nick and Joe.

I don't see that he can now legitimately undermine his clients own testimony with a 3rd version even if it might be true.

To me it is not worthy of serious consideration.

If the accused has 3 versions, then we are past the point of giving him the benefit of the doubt

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

 

[Cherwell]

I'm glad you posted it LozDa as it answers questions for me that I've been too embarrassed to ask thinking I was just thick lol. Ach might as well as one thick question either. I can't find a UK missing forum. Can you point me in its direction? Pretty please? I came here due to the Corrie McKeague and Helen Bailey cases but just did a name search for them.
Thanks for the info

No, you're not thick, there's just no logical structure. It is not intuitive. Any given case might fit into multiple sections. Plus there are sections sort of "folded away" and not visible until you click on an unobtrusive button to reveal them - something I didn't find out for a long time. Plus cases are moved around from Missing section to Found section to Trial section which makes it harder to stay on top.

I just look for the particular case I am following and subscribe to the threads. Then I only have to click on 'subscriptions' under "Quick Links" and I'm there. I don't bother with anything else.

 

[ZaZara]

I followed the link Alyce gave
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...t=susan+mclean

Very interesting and a credit to the forum, rather than directly relevant to this case, I thought, as there was no foul play. I had to skip a lot as it's quite long.

BBM


:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: It is only ONE thread!

 

[maud]

An interesting titbit.

I was out socially today and introduced to a criminal barrister who practises across East Anglia and the northern reach of the Home Counties - he has frequent cases in Cambridge, Luton and St Albans.

Talk turned to the Helen Bailey case over lunch and he remarked that St Albans is what is known among counsel as a "convicting court", where there is a far higher likelihood of conviction than average. No-one knows why this should be the case, but across the country there are courts where juries are known for predominantly either acquitting or convicting.

The barrister said that if he was IS's defence he would have hoped for trial Luton Crown Court, rather than St Albans, as acquittal rates are typically high in Bedfordshire. In his view, IS needs "all the help he can get."

 

[Really?]

Does anyone think there should be charges for killing Boris too?

Yes, it is a crime here in the states...:jail:

 

[jenspired]

I'm binge watching Say Yes to the Dress UK and feel sorry for the poor wedding designer called Ian Stuart...

I really feel for his poor parents and sons as well as Helen's family this weekend. The waiting for the verdict must be interminable.

Oh what a tangled web we weave

 

[Cherwell]

I followed the link Alyce gave
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...t=susan+mclean

Very interesting and a credit to the forum, rather than directly relevant to this case, I thought, as there was no foul play. I had to skip a lot as it's quite long.

I had read this before. The forum didn't have much to do with proceedings really. The outcome was the result of the efforts of one dedicated local searcher and one faithful devoted friend of the missing woman, both of whom joined WS for the purposes of Susan's case. Lessons to be learned though, including that things are not always what they seem, and sometimes what you read in the papers is true.

 

[Alyce]

No, you're not thick, there's just no logical structure. It is not intuitive. Any given case might fit into multiple sections. Plus there are sections sort of "folded away" and not visible until you click on an unobtrusive button to reveal them - something I didn't find out for a long time. Plus cases are moved around from Missing section to Found section to Trial section which makes it harder to stay on top.

I just look for the particular case I am following and subscribe to the threads. Then I only have to click on 'subscriptions' under "Quick Links" and I'm there. I don't bother with anything else.

I save the link in my favourites, then it doesn't matter if the section on WS changes, the link still works and gets me to the thread..and as you say Cherwell, once you are subscribed it will come up under that link also

 

[pinklilies]

Im just about to start down the Susan McLean rabbit hole but tried searching the threads for where the case was mentioned before with no luck. What was the reason for the must-read? In relation to this case or just a general must-read?

Just wonderin'

Basically, she was a Canadian tourist who went missing here in Scotland. Police searches failed to find her but a local lady persevered and searched for her daily. Her family had to return home but a friend of Susan's came over from Canada, stayed here for some months, organised searches and on one of these searches, a member of the public found her. It showed the true compassion of a friend and locals unknown to Susan, how they simply wouldn't give up on finding her.

Apologies as I know this is off topic.

 

[Alyce]

An interesting titbit.

I was out socially today and introduced to a criminal barrister who practises across East Anglia and the northern reach of the Home Counties - he has frequent cases in Cambridge, Luton and St Albans.

Talk turned to the Helen Bailey case over lunch and he remarked that St Albans is what is known among counsel as a "convicting court", where there is a far higher likelihood of conviction than average. No-one knows why this should be the case, but across the country there are courts where juries are known for predominantly either acquitting or convicting.

The barrister said that if he was IS's defence he would have hoped for trial Luton Crown Court, rather than St Albans, as acquittal rates are typically high in Bedfordshire. In his view, IS needs "all the help he can get."

I know both towns well....st Albans better than Luton though.... I could make a very good guess as to why these stats are as they are... Will do so after verdict

 

[pinklilies]

I know both towns well....st Albans better than Luton though.... I could make a very good guess as to why these stats are as they are... Will do so after verdict

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts Alyce. When it's safe to do so.

 

[plumage]

If someone dies by accident then you are usually going to see some signs of trauma to the body for example if you accidentally pushed someone down the stairs, If she had died because of a medical reason there would be no need for a cover up

 

[Belgarion]

An aside. When IS is found guilty and sentenced then the dastardly pair, Nick and Joe, as figments of his imagination will also be incarcerated with him. A judicial hat-trick for the prosecution!

 

[peter010101]

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.

Thanks for the interesting article!

Rearranging "reasonable doubt" to a "doubt that is reasonable": a deliberately dismissive non-answer to the juror? Maybe the judge is saying that it's for the jury to interpret "reasonable"; but surely some expansion would be worthwhile.

In the current formula, "satisfied so that you are sure", the first five words seem redundant but presumably were deemed helpful somehow. Were they intended as a weakening of "sure" or a clarification of it, one wonders.