GUILTY UK - Diane Stewart, 47, found dead, Bassingbourn, Cambridgeshire, 25 June 2010 *arrest in 2020*

[Beachdreams]

"I had to lie in relation to Helen Bailey" Does this mean that IS is still holding on to the Nick and Joe story?

It certainly looks that way! Bizarre!

 

[Moll]

I can post them up

Thank you, Alyce! You're indefatigable...

 

[neteditor]

@Alyce thank you so much for pasting the tweets, I was so rushed earlier I didn't think to.

Clearly this evil creature is still denying murdering Helen. What an absolute fool. I imagine the jury will also read plenty into that.

 

[Alyce]

Stuart Trimmer QC, prosecuting, told the defendant: “You had Diane Stewart cremated so there would be very little that could come back and bite you.”

Stewart, being cross-examined at Huntingdon Crown Court, replied: “The cremation was a joint decision with the boys and if I was thinking that way I wouldn’t have agreed to keep the brain and heart.”

Mr Trimmer said: “Is it not very surprising that both Helen Bailey and Diane Stewart are individuals whose death was caused by a similar mechanism in the view of the professionals?

Only some of the professionals,” Stewart replied.

The prosecutor suggested Stewart was “a man capable of extreme and callous violence”.

Stewart replied: “No.”



Ian Stewart had wife cremated to destroy evidence, murder trial hears

 

[Beachdreams]

Stuart Trimmer QC, prosecuting, told the defendant: “You had Diane Stewart cremated so there would be very little that could come back and bite you.”

Stewart, being cross-examined at Huntingdon Crown Court, replied: “The cremation was a joint decision with the boys and if I was thinking that way I wouldn’t have agreed to keep the brain and heart.”

Mr Trimmer said: “Is it not very surprising that both Helen Bailey and Diane Stewart are individuals whose death was caused by a similar mechanism in the view of the professionals?

Only some of the professionals,” Stewart replied.

The prosecutor suggested Stewart was “a man capable of extreme and callous violence”.

Stewart replied: “No.”



Ian Stewart had wife cremated to destroy evidence, murder trial hears

"Mr Trimmer said: “Is it not very surprising that both Helen Bailey and Diane Stewart are individuals whose death was caused by a similar mechanism in the view of the professionals?

Only some of the professionals,” Stewart replied."

I would like to read how Mr Trimmer dealt with this. I am not aware of any professional who disputes the cause of death, but I have possibly missed something, or perhaps we haven't had everything reported as fully as in the first trial? Neither am I aware that the defence team has adduced any evidence to support what IS is saying here?

 

[jiminy]

Wow. This guy.

 

[Alyce]

"Mr Trimmer said: “Is it not very surprising that both Helen Bailey and Diane Stewart are individuals whose death was caused by a similar mechanism in the view of the professionals?

Only some of the professionals,” Stewart replied."

I would like to read how Mr Trimmer dealt with this. I am not aware of any professional who disputes the cause of death, but I have possibly missed something, or perhaps we haven't had everything reported as fully as in the first trial? Neither am I aware that the defence team has adduced any evidence to support what IS is saying here?

From the limited reporting, it looks as though Prosecution finished on Monday and Defence, so far, seem to have only called IS over Tuesday and today. I suppose they may plan to call their own expert medical witness and if so, then presumably IS would have advance knowledge of what is going to be said.
Other than that, I would say it is just IS being his usual arrogant self.

 

[Moll]

"Mr Trimmer said: “Is it not very surprising that both Helen Bailey and Diane Stewart are individuals whose death was caused by a similar mechanism in the view of the professionals?

Only some of the professionals,” Stewart replied."

I would like to read how Mr Trimmer dealt with this. I am not aware of any professional who disputes the cause of death, but I have possibly missed something, or perhaps we haven't had everything reported as fully as in the first trial? Neither am I aware that the defence team has adduced any evidence to support what IS is saying here?

Is IS perhaps clinging to the slight doubt cast on the idea that SUDEP could not be the cause of the death by his counsel here (Alyce's post 288):

'A second expert witness, consultant neuropathologist Dr Kieren Allinson, said there was “no positive evidence of a recent seizure”, such as tongue biting.

He described epilepsy as “awful” and said “people die suddenly and unexpectedly of the disease”.

Dr Allinson agreed with Mr Malik that the absence of evidence of a recent seizure “doesn’t make it unlikely that SUDEP occurred”.

He said: “A history of recent seizure is a risk factor for SUDEP but often they haven’t had a seizure for many, many years.”'

Even though he also said there was no positive evidence that Diane had an epileptic fit,could that throw doubt on the general consensus?

 

[Stumpyaura]

I actually thought he was admitting finally to HBs murder until I realised towards the end he was keeping up his ridiculous story from HB trial. Who else would say, after carrying out CBR on their lifeless spouse, at the end they were exhausted?! He's so awful and blatant and I can't believe he's taken the stand again - well, I can, he clearly loves being able to tell his fictions.

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

Convicted killer Ian Stewart, who is on trial for the murder of his wife, was accused today of having her cremated "so there would be very little that could come back and bite you".

At the time, Diane's death was attributed to sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP).

A neuropathologist was asked to examine preserved parts of Mrs Stewart's brain, which had been donated to medical science.

He told Huntingdon Crown Court he found evidence of a lack of oxygen to her brain for between 35 minutes and an hour before her death.

Stuart Trimmer QC, prosecuting, told the defendant: "You had Diane Stewart cremated so there would be very little that could come back and bite you."

Stewart replied: "The cremation was a joint decision with the boys and if I was thinking that way I wouldn't have agreed to keep the brain and heart."

Mr Trimmer said that Stewart's 999 call in 2010, in which he said his wife had had a fit, was "just a lying charade", adding: "You're a devious man, Mr Stewart."

Murder trial: Ian Stewart accused of cremating his wife to 'destroy evidence'

 

[Beachdreams]

From the limited reporting, it looks as though Prosecution finished on Monday and Defence, so far, seem to have only called IS over Tuesday and today. I suppose they may plan to call their own expert medical witness and if so, then presumably IS would have advance knowledge of what is going to be said.
Other than that, I would say it is just IS being his usual arrogant self.

I don’t think the defence will be adducing evidence to contradict the Crown’s three witnesses who say Diane died due to IS restricting her breathing for up to an hour before her death. The defence will have had to file a defence statement which should have included, amongst other things, details of any evidence which might undermine the Crown’s case. I think it highly likely that if the defence did have such a witness statement they would have taken the perhaps somewhat unusual step of disclosing that evidence to the Crown to enable the Crown to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute - bearing in mind that the jury are directed to find the defendant not guilty if they have any doubt whatsoever about the defendant’s guilt. I don’t think that Mr Trimmer/CPS would have decided to proceed with the case if they had any doubt at all. After all, IS is already serving a life sentence and cannot be considered for parole for 34 years from the date the sentence was imposed. Plus, the reports we have read online indicate that Mr Malik’s only line of cross examination seemed to be along the lines that the absence of evidence of a recent seizure 'doesn't make it unlikely that SUDEP occurred'. He does not appear to have suggested that what they are saying is merely “opinion”.


I hope I’m right and the defence don’t have any surprises for us tomorrow!

 

[Beachdreams]

Even though he also said there was no positive evidence that Diane had an epileptic fit,could that throw doubt on the general consensus?

That seems to be the only line of defence so far (according to the meagre newspaper reports certainly) and has caused me some concern. However, looking at how Mr Trimmer has so very cleverly introduced the conviction for Helen’s murder, and cross examined IS about the similarities in its execution and motive I think that that, coupled with the evidence of ischemia (damage to the cells due to lack of oxygen and blood supply) from the experts must surely (hopefully) convince the jury of IS’s guilt here. I will be very interested to hear the closing speeches, and in particular the Judge’s summing up.

 

[Tortoise]

Reading between the lines (because of the lack of thorough reporting) I think there's probably a problem with his timeline, and filling up the 54 minutes between 10:30am (when he told police he had last seen Diane) and 11:24am when he called 999.

He went to Tesco to buy a few things and forgot his wallet (according to IS - but no proof of this trip).

Tesco in Royston is a 6 minute drive from the house.

Say 15 minutes to pick up the two items, head to the checkout and discover he had left his wallet at home. A trip totalling 27 minutes.

That leaves 27 minutes to account for before calling 999.

So he invented the CPR and standing outside the doctor's house for 5 minutes before making the phone call.

But the trouble is he told the call handler that he could go and fetch his neighbour so I don't think the jury is going to believe his time-filler. Especially since he also said on the 999 call -

999: Can you check her for me?

IS: Yeah.

999: Is she breathing?

IS: I don't think so, I've turned her to try to put her in the recovery position but I can't do it because she just flopped back. I think she's had a fit.


He doesn't say he's already attempted CPR for about 20 minutes. Plus he says he "just found her" . Plus he was counting too fast even for the two chest compressions every second - which makes it sound as if he was just counting very fast and not actually doing any compressions. Two compressions per second would be very fast, let alone going faster than that.

999: I'll tell you when to stop, sir, it's 600 times.

(IS continues counting from one to four).

999: Slow down sir, it's one, two, three, four.

[...]

999: You keep going, I'll tell you when it's 600 times, OK?

(IS continues counting from one to four).

999: Keep going, sir.

(IS continues counting from one to four, counting quicker as time goes by)

999: It's one, two, three, four.

IS: Sorry.

 

[minusfour]

A very telling cross examination. Mr Trimmer excelled at eliciting some problematic statements, which must be almost impossible to explain innocently.

 

[KarenUK]

He doesn't say he's already attempted CPR for about 20 minutes. Plus he says he "just found her" . Plus he was counting too fast even for the two chest compressions every second - which makes it sound as if he was just counting very fast and not actually doing any compressions. Two compressions per second would be very fast, let alone going faster than that.

999: I'll tell you when to stop, sir, it's 600 times.

(IS continues counting from one to four).

999: Slow down sir, it's one, two, three, four.

[...]

999: You keep going, I'll tell you when it's 600 times, OK?

(IS continues counting from one to four).

999: Keep going, sir.

(IS continues counting from one to four, counting quicker as time goes by)

999: It's one, two, three, four.

IS: Sorry.

RSBM

I *REALLY* want to hear this part of the call....

 

[Moll]

One bit of the cross-examination I'd like to know more about is IS's reply to Mr Trimmer that he agreed Diane's cremation with his sons and wouldn't have consented to the brain and heart (I didn't remember about the heart?) being retained if he'd had evil motives. But would his consent have been sought if, as we know, she had explicitly asked for them to be retained for research purposes?

 

[neteditor]

Hopefully they release the 999 tape after he is convicted. I want to compare how he sounded then compared to Helen.

 

[KarenUK]

One bit of the cross-examination I'd like to know more about is IS's reply to Mr Trimmer that he agreed Diane's cremation with his sons and wouldn't have consented to the brain and heart (I didn't remember about the heart?) being retained if he'd had evil motives. But would his consent have been sought if, as we know, she had explicitly asked for them to be retained for research purposes?

I bet it never occurred to him that they'd be able to determine a COD from the brain alone. Also by this point he probably thought he'd got away with it

 

[Tortoise]

One bit of the cross-examination I'd like to know more about is IS's reply to Mr Trimmer that he agreed Diane's cremation with his sons and wouldn't have consented to the brain and heart (I didn't remember about the heart?) being retained if he'd had evil motives. But would his consent have been sought if, as we know, she had explicitly asked for them to be retained for research purposes?

I think he's a coward and thought he would raise suspicion by saying no to organ donation to medical research. I don't suppose he thought they would be able to tell how Diane died, particularly given the findings at the inquest. What I noticed is that he said he agreed, not that he made the offer, and so I don't think he dared challenge Diane's wishes and draw more attention to himself.

 

[Alyce]

One bit of the cross-examination I'd like to know more about is IS's reply to Mr Trimmer that he agreed Diane's cremation with his sons and wouldn't have consented to the brain and heart (I didn't remember about the heart?) being retained if he'd had evil motives. But would his consent have been sought if, as we know, she had explicitly asked for them to be retained for research purposes?

I think he was forced to go along with it. It was a specific request by Diane so would have been included in her Will, or another formal document. It would have been difficult for IS to block the request without it looking suspicious. As we know from WBL evidence, he was already being difficult/angry after she phoned the coroner, so I think if he had refused to honour Diane's wishes, it would have led to even more questions and suspicions. Even the sons were old enough to question a refusal.

It's along the same lines as the money that he gained after Diane's death. He said he was not interested in having any of the money ( he made the same statement during his trial for Helen's murder too ) but in fact he claimed every penny that he could from Diane's legacy. The only money he didn't take was the £56k that he couldn't get his hands on, due to problems with the paperwork. I suspect the * problem * may have been the payer requiring further medical details re Diane's death and IS of course not wanting to risk something coming to light.