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

[Duchy]

icemaiden and tiny check your letter boxes. Anyone else interested just say.

Ooh thought I caused the servers to crash for a moment :nerves:

Yes please Tortoise x

 

[Alyce]

:tyou:

icemaiden and tiny check your letter boxes. Anyone else interested just say.

Ooh thought I caused the servers to crash for a moment :nerves:

Waves hand in air. :tyou:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Tortoise,

I have just had a peak at Peter Hyatt's website. All very interesting.

Micki Pistorius is a profiler is she not? Although not involved in his case, she must be the one person as sure as we are that he is a murderous liar.

 

[icemaiden65]

:tyou:


Waves hand in air. :tyou:

And a huge thank you from me as well Tortoise - fascinating stuff! x :loveyou:

 

[Florrie]

I'm going to stick with my original estimate of a verdict within 30-60 minutes, I am sure they all know exactly how they are going to vote. Nothing to discuss or pretend to discuss, gives them enough time to elect a foreman, vote and write a note to the judge.

I would love to see such a quick verdict. I hope you're right.

I am going for a guilty verdict within 24 hrs. ....and in the first 30-60 mins would be great.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Florrie]

icemaiden and tiny check your letter boxes. Anyone else interested just say.

Ooh thought I caused the servers to crash for a moment :nerves:

Yes please


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rayemonde]

Just to add a bit more to my previous post, he says it is a science that never fails, and it can be proved by his success rate at getting confessions.

Off-topic, but I completely disagree. Statement analysis is a pseudoscience, imo. The few studies that have been done unto it have found a very poor success rate.

 

[Joely 123]

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

I go back to his Arrest (2nd one) .. when he says 'YOU MUST BE JOKING'.

 

[Cherwell]

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 -

Well. The Judge has had all weekend to examine what was said, and I hope he may have spared a little time on checking some of the defence lies.

 

[Joely 123]

Apologies - I can't remember who mentioned this but I watched the Widower - the series about Malcolm Webster. It was really good , though so sad for the families. And the parallels between him and IS..... I couldn't believe it especially the Salford Uni link.
Thoroughly recommended to anyone who hasn't watched it.

I watched it - the three Episodes together, and say thank you again to whoever (sorry also forgotten) recommended this.
I caught a tiny part of a Ch 5 film, where the husband gained POA whilst drugging his wife whilst saying stay in bed, you are not well - and meanwhile telling the house help to make sure his wife stayed safely in bed (for the benefit of her health). The wife owned a company, which husband was selling off .. but she cottoned on to his drugging - and each tab he gave her lovingly with the glass of water - she held in her mouth until he turned his back, satisfied she was going to sleep again. I loved when she was wide awake and confronted him in the Board Room when he was about to sell all of her Company.
BUT - felt sad that Helen was too late to confront the evilness of IS.

 

[Joely 123]

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][/COLOR]

Loving Strimmer - cut right down to the wood of any hedge.

 

[jenspired]

Well. The Judge has had all weekend to examine what was said, and I hope he may have spared a little time on checking some of the defence lies.

I wish he'd do a table presenting what was said vs actual witness evidence colour-coded by truth and lies!!

Oh what a tangled web we weave

 

[Joely 123]

I have caught up on WS, and find it as usual filled with interesting and detailed thoughts. Thank you.

I need to correct an error in one of my posts. I read last night that Helen did describe her grief symptoms of JS's death in terms of 'not recognising her hands at the computer. I had thought it was only when she imagined her hand holding that of her lost husband.
However, I do believe it was literary licence Helen was using when she described her estranged hands typing her blog - and NOT the same as when she was drugged by IS - and the Defence attempted to relate the two - grief and drugging - to save his Client. IS would SO approve of Flinty on that point.

 

[Tortoise]

Off-topic, but I completely disagree. Statement analysis is a pseudoscience, imo. The few studies that have been done unto it have found a very poor success rate.

He speaks from his own experience. Perhaps it depends on the training.

 

[Tortoise]

I wish he'd do a table presenting what was said vs actual witness evidence colour-coded by truth and lies!!

Oh what a tangled web we weave

Don't worry jen there are 12 jurors and that means 12 brains, sets of ears, eyes, and notes.

 

[LozDa]

*coughs in the direction of Tortypots and checks inbox*

 

[michelle230]

[FONT=&quot]Copied from this website:
[/FONT]
https://ukcrime.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/how-do-juries-decide-a-case/[FONT=&quot]

"The minimum period of time that the jury have to have been thinking about their verdict (‘in retirement&#8217 before a jury can return a majority verdict is 2 hours 10 minutes. In practice, Judges will give a jury longer than that. The general rule is that the longer and more complicated the case, the longer the Judge will give the jury before giving a majority direction. Sometimes it will be several days in a particularly serious case."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Not recent but within the last few years. Can anyone verify if this is the case?[/FONT]

 

[Ironside]

I can see it taking a few day to get a verdict. There was a lot of evidence to discuss and the jury could get engrossed in discussing the insane web of lies like we do.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[Moll]

[FONT=&amp]Copied from this website:
[/FONT]
https://ukcrime.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/how-do-juries-decide-a-case/[FONT=&amp]

"The minimum period of time that the jury have to have been thinking about their verdict (‘in retirement&#8217 before a jury can return a majority verdict is 2 hours 10 minutes. In practice, Judges will give a jury longer than that. The general rule is that the longer and more complicated the case, the longer the Judge will give the jury before giving a majority direction. Sometimes it will be several days in a particularly serious case."

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Not recent but within the last few years. Can anyone verify if this is the case?[/FONT]

I think this is right, Michelle. At least two hours, anyway, and as stated it could be days in a complicated case..

From the Juries Act 1974:
17 Majority verdicts.

(1)​

Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the verdict of a jury in proceedings in the Crown Court or the High Court need not be unanimous if—

(a)​

in a case where there are not less than eleven jurors, ten of them agree on the verdict; and

(b)​

in a case where there are ten jurors, nine of them agree on the verdict.

(2)​

Subject to subsection (4) below, the verdict of a jury (that is to say a complete jury of eight) in proceedings in a county court need not be unanimous if seven of them agree on the verdict.

(3)​

The Crown Court shall not accept a verdict of guilty by virtue of subsection (1) above unless the foreman of the jury has stated in open court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to and dissented from the verdict.

(4)​

No court shall accept a verdict by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above unless it appears to the court that the jury have had such period of time for deliberation as the court thinks reasonable having regard to the nature and complexity of the case; and the Crown Court shall in any event not accept such a verdict unless it appears to the court that the jury have had at least two hours for deliberation.

(5)​

This section is without prejudice to any practice in civil proceedings by which a court may accept a majority verdict with the consent of the parties, or by which the parties may agree to proceed in any case with an incomplete jury.

 

[Moll]

Just to add a bit more to my previous post, he says it is a science that never fails, and it can be proved by his success rate at getting confessions.

Thanks for informing us about Peter Hyatt, Tortoise. I've watched several of the youtube videos and been very interested, though I do find him a bit slow and repetitive. I thought most of his points with reference to the 911 call and radio interview he was discussing were valid and could see many parallels with IS.

I'd be wary of accepting a statement like 'a science that never fails', though, partly because he's selling his own business and partly because it's clearly not a science but a skill based on experience of how people behave. I couldn't help my hackles rising when he made statements like 'Pronouns predate language' - they don't, obviously. (It also struck me that cultural norms on pronouns are quite variable. I lived for years in a society in West Africa where it was frowned upon for a parent to refer to or address the eldest son, or a wife to refer to or address her husband, by name - they'd be in deep trouble if they ever rang 911 in the USA and Peter Hyatt were to analyse the call!)

I expect you know about forensic linguistics in this country? Jan Svartvik on the Evans case in the late 1960s, Malcolm Coulthard on Derek Bentley and others (too late, often, but still). But I think their work was mainly on identifying authorship rather than guilt. I'm probably completely out of date. Aston University is strong in this area but I don't know how much their work is used by courts.