GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #1

[MillyM]

That's fast - Hatfield today and Crown Court on Monday

BOB fm Home Counties ‏@bobfmuk 4m4 minutes ago

#BOBnews 55 year-old Ian Stewart will appear at St Albans crown court on Monday (2/2)

Not really. Formal charge and for him to enter plea, and to proceed to the next step of trial.

 

[neteditor]

Something struck me today for the first time. Forgive me if you all noticed already and I am slow on the uptake, I have a bad case of man flu The news articles describe the Royston house as "...her house which she shares with IS and his sons" (WTTE).

I'm sure I read earlier in the events of this awful case that they bought the house together, but now they seem to be saying it is Helen's alone? Or am I reading too much into it?

@Tortoise - agree with you (again, I always do!) the heavy duty cutting machines are most likely to be for concrete.

I wonder if dear little Boris will be IS's eventual downfall. It's one thing to argue emotional loss of control resulting in unintended death, but to go right ahead and do away with the dog presumably in order to concoct the cover story that she had gone away of her own volition? That to me shows a cruel nature. I should say no more about it but, awful though it seems, it is Boris' outcome that troubles me the most. There's nothing he could have done to spark a sudden emotional loss of control, his end must have been cold blooded.

 

[Alyce]

Not really. Formal charge and for him to enter plea, and to proceed to the next step of trial.

Most cases I have followed there is usually a week or so between Magistrates ( in this case Remand Court in Hatfield ) and Crown Court - but am not complaining, quicker the better far as I'm concerned.

I dont believe he will enter a plea on Monday, just do the usual name and dob and be remanded in custody ahead of a pre trial meeting.

 

[Alyce]

Something struck me today for the first time. Forgive me if you all noticed already and I am slow on the uptake, I have a bad case of man flu The news articles describe the Royston house as "...her house which she shares with IS and his sons" (WTTE).

I'm sure I read earlier in the events of this awful case that they bought the house together, but now they seem to be saying it is Helen's alone? Or am I reading too much into it?

@Tortoise - agree with you (again, I always do!) the heavy duty cutting machines are most likely to be for concrete.

I wonder if dear little Boris will be IS's eventual downfall. It's one thing to argue emotional loss of control resulting in unintended death, but to go right ahead and do away with the dog presumably in order to concoct the cover story that she had gone away of her own volition? That to me shows a cruel nature. I should say no more about it but, awful though it seems, it is Boris' outcome that troubles me the most. There's nothing he could have done to spark a sudden emotional loss of control, his end must have been cold blooded.

I dont think you are reading too much into it. I have done a lot of research on this case and I will just say it would not surprise me if what you think is correct.

And yes, it may be one thing to try and talk about an accidental murder, but to then kill Boris ( if indeed that is what has happened ) will take a lot more explanining.

Snap on the flu - I have fuzzy head and raging sore throat, lovely virus going round.

 

[neteditor]

Sorry to hear your feeling bad too Alyce, I wish you (and me lol) well soon. My children are delighted, I can't even be bothered monitoring crisp and biscuit consumption hehe.

 

[trendsetter]

I would hope that the police now regret that their search of her home and grounds made shortly after she was reported missing wasn't sufficiently thorough. .

 

[Tortoise]

It's the part that intrigues me the most, the why. The make up of a killer, could this person have killed before, were there any signs to the people who really knew them, was this person someone who most people would sense there was something they couldn't quite put their finger on but they just felt uneasy in their presence or that they did not trust them.

Except in cases where the killer develops a relationship with their victim specifically at the outset with the aim in mind of killing them eventually and benefiting financially, I think in domestic killings there will always be something that sparked the breakdown in relations, money/sexual jealousy/infidelity/lack of commitment etc, but that is not necessarily to say why they killed instead of breaking up.

In this case Helen was sending out signals from late 2015 I believe, I haven't read all the blogs and I'm not on facebook so haven't seen all her postings, that she was thinking of making a change, and leaving IS. I think she wrestled with the idea of marriage - and doubted her feelings, uncertain whether it was because he wasn't right for her long term, or because she was not ready. I think she tried to convince herself that she should, and that's why she made a lighthearted reference to watching episodes of Say yes to the dress. I think that humour was to cover for something that worried her far more than she was prepared to say.

His illness would have complicated the leaving process, but yet again she wasn't shy of saying to friends TLC is wearing thin.

I think she was definitely in the process of leaving. On that basis, the note could have been real. Or she could have left it from a recent time, after a row, like at Easter when I think she went to Broadstairs. A row would explain the brevity of it. On the other hand it could have been a fabricated detail.

I don't think it was about money per se (unless, as I said, he has done this before and had been setting the wheels in motion for another windfall, which is possible). But even if it was about the money - that says to me 'but if I lose my financial stability I'm done for, or I won't survive it. So the base line, for me, is that even if it was about losing Helen's money, or losing the relationship, or her not agreeing to get married yet, it was about losing control. About ownership, and not allowing Helen her own decisions.

Control and rage. Not loss of control as in momentary loss of temper, but loss of control over his future, and being the one not in charge.

 

[Tortoise]

I would hope that the police now regret that their search of her home and grounds made shortly after she was reported missing wasn't sufficiently thorough. .

If her remains were there at that stage, which I am personally not at all sure about. I'm guessing activity has been more recent. He's been to Broadstairs a few times.

 

[Tortoise]

Get well soon Alyce and neteditor!

 

[mrazda71]

If her remains were there at that stage, which I am personally not at all sure about. I'm guessing activity has been more recent. He's been to Broadstairs a few times.

Yes I was thinking that, i've seen a few 'why wasn't she found when police searched the septic tank' posts but there's nothing we've heard yet to suggest she was there then.

Doesn't obstructing the coroner suggest that the killer had somehow tried to dispose of a body (dismemberment, acid, burning etc) rather than just burying or is it the fact that she could've been just buried there at the time and him keeping quiet for 3 months is the obstruction?

 

[Alyce]

It's the part that intrigues me the most, the why. The make up of a killer, could this person have killed before, were there any signs to the people who really knew them, was this person someone who most people would sense there was something they couldn't quite put their finger on but they just felt uneasy in their presence or that they did not trust them.

Except in cases where the killer develops a relationship with their victim specifically at the outset with the aim in mind of killing them eventually and benefiting financially, I think in domestic killings there will always be something that sparked the breakdown in relations, money/sexual jealousy/infidelity/lack of commitment etc, but that is not necessarily to say why they killed instead of breaking up.

In this case Helen was sending out signals from late 2015 I believe, I haven't read all the blogs and I'm not on facebook so haven't seen all her postings, that she was thinking of making a change, and leaving IS. I think she wrestled with the idea of marriage - and doubted her feelings, uncertain whether it was because he wasn't right for her long term, or because she was not ready. I think she tried to convince herself that she should, and that's why she made a lighthearted reference to watching episodes of Say yes to the dress. I think that humour was to cover for something that worried her far more than she was prepared to say.

His illness would have complicated the leaving process, but yet again she wasn't shy of saying to friends TLC is wearing thin.

I think she was definitely in the process of leaving. On that basis, the note could have been real. Or she could have left it from a recent time, after a row, like at Easter when I think she went to Broadstairs. A row would explain the brevity of it. On the other hand it could have been a fabricated detail.

I don't think it was about money per se (unless, as I said, he has done this before and had been setting the wheels in motion for another windfall, which is possible). But even if it was about the money - that says to me 'but if I lose my financial stability I'm done for, or I won't survive it. So the base line, for me, is that even if it was about losing Helen's money, or losing the relationship, or her not agreeing to get married yet, it was about losing control. About ownership, and not allowing Helen her own decisions.

Control and rage. Not loss of control as in momentary loss of temper, but loss of control over his future, and being the one not in charge.

Excellent post Tortoise. Agree wholeheartedly.

And I would add, loss of image - blow to ego/pride.
Someone local to the area for their whole life, who had reached a much elevated standard of living, due , in the main, to another person's funding. Now going to suffer loss of face with friends and relatives by having to relocate and downsize.
I sincerely hope that money/funding was not the immediate attraction for the relationship - but it was certainly something that the person quickly learnt to adapt to and did not want to relinquish.

 

[Alyce]

Yes I was thinking that, i've seen a few 'why wasn't she found when police searched the septic tank' posts but there's nothing we've heard yet to suggest she was there then.

Doesn't obstructing the coroner suggest that the killer had somehow tried to dispose of a body (dismemberment, acid, burning etc) rather than just burying or is it the fact that she could've been just buried there at the time and him keeping quiet for 3 months is the obstruction?

I agree that obstructing the coroner, does sound like a direct charge against him doing something to the body - as you say, dismemberment, acid etc.

Even though he would still have been hampering the coroner just by burying and keeping quiet, I do think the word obstruct was used in this case to indicate direct action taken with the body to prevent COD being ascertained. And presumably to also make it easier to hide a corpse in the garden.

ETA see my post below 476 - with different explanation

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder why he hasn't been charged with theft of her money.

I think the earlier charge of obstructing the coroner has been replaced with preventing a lawful burial and perverting the course of justice mrazda. I don't know how they differ, or if one is easier to prosecute.

 

[Alyce]

If her remains were there at that stage, which I am personally not at all sure about. I'm guessing activity has been more recent. He's been to Broadstairs a few times.

Indeed. Could have been a more recent action. Another reason why cadaver dogs would have been very useful if this was the case to check house/s and cars.

 

[mrazda71]

Cadavers - cadaver dogs you mean?

 

[Alyce]

From the link below....it seems as though obstructing a coroner is a charge which can be used when a person tries to conceal a death which was innocent or accidental.
Hence why the police may have originally used that charge - perhaps giving IS the benefit of the doubt at a time when they did not have definite evidence ( no body ).

When the body was discovered, they could then levy the more serious charge of preventing a burial and perverting the course of justice, when it become clear that this is a criminal act.



Obstructing a Coroner - Preventing the Burial of a Body

Any disposal of a corpse with intent to obstruct or prevent a coroner's inquest, when there is a duty to hold one, is an offence. The offence is a common law offence, triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.

The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner.

The offences of obstructing a coroner and preventing the burial of a body may arise for example, when a person decides to conceal the innocent and unexpected death of a relative or friend or prevent his burial. Such cases inevitably raise sensitive public interest factors which must be carefully considered.

When the evidence supports a charge of involuntary manslaughter, it may be necessary to add a charge of obstructing a coroner or preventing a burial if the disposal of the body is more serious than the unlawful act which caused the death.

Obstructing a coroner may also amount to an offence of perverting the course of justice. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as obstructing a coroner, when consideration should be given to a charge of perverting the course of justice.


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a37

 

[Alyce]

Cadavers - cadaver dogs you mean?

Yes. Sorry just edited that, it did look a bit odd !

Far as I remember, they can pick up a scent if a body has been in situ for 2 hours or more. Assuming IS could not act immediately on April 11, following death, the body could have been concealed somewhere in the house for a length of time.

 

[Alyce]

I wonder why he hasn't been charged with theft of her money.

I think the earlier charge of obstructing the coroner has been replaced with preventing a lawful burial and perverting the course of justice mrazda. I don't know how they differ, or if one is easier to prosecute.

Strange about the money charge. I wonder if his solicitor has argued that, because he seemingly had POA, then it is not a lawful charge ?

 

[neteditor]

I think the police were simply not able to thoroughly search the properties before, they would have needed IS's permission to do so. Perhaps he refused them permission or they suspected that he would refuse. The arrest details early last week were more specific than the charges now laid, perhaps because the police had to specify in order to be able to conduct the thorough searches? They don't need a search warrant during an arrest I think? Laying a charge with a wider scope now gives the CPS room to manoevre on the trial evidence.

I thought POA was only given when the person was no longer able to look after their own affairs through illness etc? Why would a strong, independently wealthy, healthy person give someone else POA?

 

[Tortoise]

Strange about the money charge. I wonder if his solicitor has argued that, because he seemingly had POA, then it is not a lawful charge ?

I doubt it Alyce, because a power of attorney wouldn't last after death.

It's possible that he was able to raise doubt as to whose money it was. Not sure. Perhaps they will add the charge in at a later date once they've finished their enquiries as it wasn't really relevant to getting him remanded.