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

[lore1]

14:46
[h=3]'Cannot establish whether dog was alive or dead when placed in tank'[/h]“However, due to the very poor preservation of the carcass due to severe post mortem self digestion, the interpretation was extremely compromised.
“It cannot therefore be established whether the animal was alive or dead when placed in the septic tank. “While a small amount of foreign material, likely septic tank debris, was found in the trachea of the dog, this did not extend into the lower airways, and the lungs did not appear heavy or wet.

 

[lore1]

14:47
[h=3]Cause of dog's death unconfirmed[/h]“Taking all the findings into account, I cannot confirm whether the animal drowned, and confirming drowning in this case would require additional evidence.
“The cause of death could not therefore be established from this postmortem.
“The severe self-digestion would suggest this animal had died greater than several weeks ago, and could have died several months prior to recovery of the carcass.”
That’s all the evidence for today. Jurors will return at 11.30am tomorrow morning.

 

[MillyM]

I agree with what Jerrica and LozDa have said.*

It is going to be common and expected to speculate when someone's first wife dies in a manner that was said to be unexpected (not sure if we ascertained whether she was a prior sufferer of epilepsy or not?) by a fall at the home they shared, and then just 6 years later the second partner dies, again at home, in circumstances for which he is now charged with murder.

Also, let us bear in mind the following with regard to the drug zopiclone:

"The decision to use a hypnotic in such patients should be taken only with this clearly in mind. If physical dependence has developed, abrupt termination of treatment will be accompanied by withdrawal symptoms (See warnings and precautions). These may consist of headaches, muscle pain, extreme anxiety, tension, restlessness, confusion and irritability. In severe cases the following symptoms may occur: derealisation, depersonalisation, hyperacusis, numbness and tingling of the extremities, hypersensitivity to light, noise and physical contact, hallucinations or epileptic seizures."

 

[lore1]

well that cesspit did it`s job well for him didn`t it,very little evidence left time and cause of death of both unknown still we will see

 

[Alyce]

Interesting detail re the zopiclone Milly.

Maybe he could only give Helen the tablets sporadically. Again, from what I have read in Helen's blog and book it doesn't sound like he did anything in terms of cooking. So that could limit his options.

This on / off ingestion of the drug might produce the symptoms outlined for termination of the treatment - creating the confusion and anxiety more quickly than if the drug was being administered daily.

 

[badhorsie]

I agree with what Jerrica and LozDa have said.*

It is going to be common and expected to speculate when someone's first wife dies in a manner that was said to be unexpected (not sure if we ascertained whether she was a prior sufferer of epilepsy or not?) by a fall at the home they shared, and then just 6 years later the second partner dies, again at home, in circumstances for which he is now charged with murder.

Also, let us bear in mind the following with regard to the drug zopiclone:

"The decision to use a hypnotic in such patients should be taken only with this clearly in mind. If physical dependence has developed, abrupt termination of treatment will be accompanied by withdrawal symptoms (See warnings and precautions). These may consist of headaches, muscle pain, extreme anxiety, tension, restlessness, confusion and irritability. In severe cases the following symptoms may occur: derealisation, depersonalisation, hyperacusis, numbness and tingling of the extremities, hypersensitivity to light, noise and physical contact, hallucinations or epileptic seizures."

But still we need to be mindful of the fact that his children read here. That is their mother.
Is there any way this matter could discussed in the basement?

 

[MillyM]

Why would his 'children' - adult males in their 20s, not vulnerable infants or teens - be reading here? You have proof of this? I would not have thought they would be scanning Websleuths by the hour either.

They are going to be reading the gory details of their father's actions in every national newspaper, local press, social media et al. They need to face up to it.

 

[JerricaBenton]

Or are more likely sat in court watching it unfold for themselves.

 

[snoopydog]

From what I've read she hadn't had epilepsy previously.

I imagine the sons have thought this themselves by now also. I don't think our speculating is out of the ordinary.

 

[badhorsie]

A family friend of HB stated that they do read here and speculation abouit their mothers demise is unsettling

 

[JerricaBenton]

It has probably already been mentioned to them, no doubt the police will be or have looked again at their mother's death in light of this.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Oh dear. If there is no definite cause of death it could let him off the hook even though she was placed in the septic tank. He can be charged with the other points on his charge sheet but hiding a body with no known cause of death (ie it cannot be proved he killed her) can get as little as a year plus something for theft and lying. I do hope it doesn't pan out like this.

 

[lore1]

indeed this

 

[LozDa]

Sometimes, legal technicalities..... :censored:

I understand why they happen; I just wish there was some way of ensuring that they are only used by those they are meant for. :sigh:

 

[Alyce]

A family friend of HB stated that they do read here and speculation abouit their mothers demise is unsettling

I didnt see that on here. I only saw a post where the friend said that the sons read her page on FB - see post 1111

 

[Alyce]

Oh dear. If there is no definite cause of death it could let him off the hook even though she was placed in the septic tank. He can be charged with the other points on his charge sheet but hiding a body with no known cause of death (ie it cannot be proved he killed her) can get as little as a year plus something for theft and lying. I do hope it doesn't pan out like this.

I share your concerns.

There's a lot of circumstancial evidence - so far - which could be said to add up to pointing the finger directly at him. At the very least he was hugely obstructive to the police when they were trying to find this woman that he professed to love dearly and some of his direct actions -the duvet to the dump, the router back to Royston - not surrendering his phone-amending the SO - all create a pattern which could link to guilt.
I am sure the Jury will take that into account.

I also hope that there may be evidence from Helen's friends who can report conversations they had with Helen re her tiredness.
I hope that Helen told friends that she had spoken with IS about it - because surely it would be astonishing if she had not spoken with IS about it - and she may have then told her friends what ISs take on the tiredness was.
I know that is technically hearsay, but it could be one more little snippet to weigh against him.

It would be stretching belief - if he is going down this route - to accept that some A N Other person or persons were able to enter the property on that day, kill Helen and Boris and then put them into the septic tank. Apart from a distinct lack of motive on the part of A N Other ( at least as far as we know ) this person or people would also have to know the location of the tank ( and that must be a small number of people ) and be prepared to do all of this whilst knowing that, at any moment, IS or one of the other occupants of the property might return. Far more likely a stranger murderer would either leave the body where it was, or take it away and dump it in the countryside/river/lake etc.
It also stretches belief that, if someone else carried out this killing, that just by coincidence, IS then puts one of Helen's cars on top of the manhole cover, 2 days later. Again, it's not impossible but it all adds up.

 

[lore1]

If the jury convicts on circumstancial evidence he will appeal and most likely win

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks for the tweets lore1.

I don't agree that this is difficult to prove. How many people knew about the existence of the tank for starters. Then she has his drugs in her body for months and doesn't know it because she wouldn't be searching for reasons for her tiredness if she did. Then he was at home the day it happened. Then there is a missing note from Helen saying she's leaving when she hadn't left at all, and who would care about killing Boris except a family member who knows she wouldn't go away without him. Then he increases the money she transfers to him same day. Then he stands to benefit financially from her death. Then there is the disposal of their bedding at the tip...I could go on. You don't need a cause of death to prove murder. IMO.

 

[jessie]

I share your concerns.

There's a lot of circumstancial evidence - so far - which could be said to add up to pointing the finger directly at him. At the very least he was hugely obstructive to the police when they were trying to find this woman that he professed to love dearly and some of his direct actions -the duvet to the dump, the router back to Royston - not surrendering his phone-amending the SO - all create a pattern which could link to guilt.
I am sure the Jury will take that into account.

I also hope that there may be evidence from Helen's friends who can report conversations they had with Helen re her tiredness.
I hope that Helen told friends that she had spoken with IS about it - because surely it would be astonishing if she had not spoken with IS about it - and she may have then told her friends what ISs take on the tiredness was.
I know that is technically hearsay, but it could be one more little snippet to weigh against him.

It would be stretching belief - if he is going down this route - to accept that some A N Other person or persons were able to enter the property on that day, kill Helen and Boris and then put them into the septic tank. Apart from a distinct lack of motive on the part of A N Other ( at least as far as we know ) this person or people would also have to know the location of the tank ( and that must be a small number of people ) and be prepared to do all of this whilst knowing that, at any moment, IS or one of the other occupants of the property might return. Far more likely a stranger murderer would either leave the body where it was, or take it away and dump it in the countryside/river/lake etc.
It also stretches belief that, if someone else carried out this killing, that just by coincidence, IS then puts one of Helen's cars on top of the manhole cover, 2 days later. Again, it's not impossible but it all adds up.

Sorry to copy the whole post, but I absolutely agree with Alyce.#

Apart from being caught 'red handed' - ie in the process of murder - most cases have to depend on what some call 'circumstancial evidence'.

I call it evidence plain and simple. To me (IMOO of course) everything reported so far is 'hard evidence'.
This is where Without Benefit Of Doubt comes into play.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I share your concerns.

There's a lot of circumstancial evidence - so far - which could be said to add up to pointing the finger directly at him. At the very least he was hugely obstructive to the police when they were trying to find this woman that he professed to love dearly and some of his direct actions -the duvet to the dump, the router back to Royston - not surrendering his phone-amending the SO - all create a pattern which could link to guilt.
I am sure the Jury will take that into account.

I also hope that there may be evidence from Helen's friends who can report conversations they had with Helen re her tiredness.
I hope that Helen told friends that she had spoken with IS about it - because surely it would be astonishing if she had not spoken with IS about it - and she may have then told her friends what ISs take on the tiredness was.
I know that is technically hearsay, but it could be one more little snippet to weigh against him.

It would be stretching belief - if he is going down this route - to accept that some A N Other person or persons were able to enter the property on that day, kill Helen and Boris and then put them into the septic tank. Apart from a distinct lack of motive on the part of A N Other ( at least as far as we know ) this person or people would also have to know the location of the tank ( and that must be a small number of people ) and be prepared to do all of this whilst knowing that, at any moment, IS or one of the other occupants of the property might return. Far more likely a stranger murderer would either leave the body where it was, or take it away and dump it in the countryside/river/lake etc.
It also stretches belief that, if someone else carried out this killing, that just by coincidence, IS then puts one of Helen's cars on top of the manhole cover, 2 days later. Again, it's not impossible but it all adds up.

BIB

He has already implicated two other people but we know nothing, as yet, about them and I am sure they don't exist. If they cannot be traced, for whatever reason, it could be difficult to prove (even if it is highly suspicious) that he did in fact place her in the tank. He obviously knew she was in there and he has been very devious on other points and I think there is no doubt he is guilty BUT the law can work in strange ways at times. I hope there are no more hiccups.

Can you answer a question for me please? Can the jurors be directed to find him not guilty of murder because there is no certain cause of death, even though the surrounding story is highly suspicious, or are the jurors allowed to determine the outcome of the trial and ignore this point?