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

[Legally Bland]

The taping was done by the Police.

Daily Mail:

Thanks, that's put that to bed for me.

I should have read more fully. Only had time to skim today.

 

[hayaletcatcher]

Thank you all for your stellar court reporting and links. When the train went thru Broadstairs tonight I thought of Helen, I've been so busy that I've just spent the commute home reading all your posts and my brains going mile a minute.

Thanks again all.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[Ironside]

I think that is the hole excavated by the police in order to gain access to the tank from the side.

Aha that makes sense, thanks

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[Rayemonde]

Finally caught up! Thanks everyone for your excellent coverage of the case!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Murder trial of author Helen Bailey: A round up of the evidence so far

Snipped with respect


The defendant allegedly murdered Ms Bailey, “probably by suffocation” between 10.51am and 2.30pm on Monday April 11, 2016.

Before she died, Ms Bailey told family members she was worried she was losing her memory, and internet searches were made by her as to why she kept falling asleep, the court was told.

Helen Bailey murder trial DAY TWO: Children's author fiancé accused of drugging her for months before killing

At 3.57pm the following day, Stewart reported Ms Bailey missing before “sitting back and watching as police conducted what he knew to be a futile missing person’s investigation”, the prosecution claim.]


BiB

I may have misread or misinterpreted your comment here but I think it was 4 days later (15th April at 3.57 pm) that Stewart reported Helen missing to the police.

Seemingly he spent 4 days getting his "ducks in a row" before doing anything precipitous. I think he only did it then because Helen's brother pressed him to.

Milly, many apologies, I had no idea this was a newspaper report. I thought it was your round up. I am not sure why but I completely missed the link to the Cambridge News.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

Hi everyone! Just joined WS having followed this case on another forum but looking forward to contributing on here too as events unfold and really wanted to say a big hello and thank you to all you busy and insightful bees who already have IS nailed on as the cold, not too bright, psychopathic killer.

My own feelings on this, for what they are worth is that there is very little his barrister can do in this case as it appears beyond belief that he isn't the perpetrator given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence:

Helen`s phone connecting briefly to the internet when IS went to the Broadstairs cottage.
He texted the phone despite having it in his possession.
Increasing the £600 standing order to £4000 the same afternoon Helen died.
He wiped his computer of data.
He purportedly threw out the note Helen left saying she needed time out.
He knew about the well and that it was a good place to hide a body.
He lied about her clothes being missing to both her friend and brother to infer she was alive and in hiding.
He killed the dog to add credence to his story that Helen had walked out. Everyone knew she wouldn't leave the dog.
He asked several times to view copies of her Will and the PoA order.
He had both motive and opportunity.
He had been prescribed sedatives that where found in Helen's tissues on autopsy.
He was asked by the police for his phone but said that he wanted to keep it with him as this is the way Helen would contact him. The phone was conveniently "lost" by IS and neither his phone, nor Helen's ever recovered.
His suspicious behaviour during the investigation and under police interview. He refused to answer questions or make any comment.

He is going to have to come up with a hell of a story to counter the obvious conclusion that only he could be responsible for her murder. Ultimately, it will come down to the jury to decide and unless they are beyond stupid they can only reach one conclusion. Therefore, if he decides not to give evidence it is effectively game over. The only chance he has is to convince the jury his version could be reasonably, possibly true and hope he can convince them. To this end, he is mirroring the "broken Oscar", trying to sway the jury and convince them he is broken, innocent, a victim and he loved Helen and there was nothing wrong in their relationship. He has to appeal to their merciful and compassionate side to get off.

The worst possible thing he could do would be to refuse to give evidence and his version. Trust me, he will give evidence and he will give the performance of his life. That same performance has already started with the poor little me act. If it wasn't too fresh in the memory he'd no doubt be mewling and puking into a green bucket and showing CT scans of his recent bowel cancer just like OP paraded around on his stumps in front of a packed courthouse.

The evidence is so overwhelming in the absence of any other possible explanation he has to convince the jury he's been punished enough, crushed by Helen's death and an unfair accusation of her murder. To do that he has to act crushed, he has to act like a victim. After the jury have seen for themselves the horror of the tight feculent pit he somehow determinedly maneuvered her lifeless body into with that of her beloved dog they will not be easily turned. The evidence is compelling, the cruelty, coldness, callous barbarity of the crime transcends any human predisposition to giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

So I'm with Tortoise on this one, her instincts on this have been spot on thus far and mirror my own. He has to give evidence, no two ways about it.

 

[Cherwell]

Welcome, Bishop! An excellent first post.

 

[Interested Bystander]

:welcome6:

 

[Alyce]

:wagon:

Welcome Bishop - really good to have you with us and excellent insightful post

 

[MillyM]

Just one thing - well, two actually: Joe and Nick!! Theys wot did it, Guv, honest!

 

[Cherwell]

Just one thing - well, two actually: Joe and Nick!! Theys wot did it, Guv, honest!

"A big boy did it and ran away!"

 

[Ironside]

I always picture Joe and Nick as Ant and Dec! It's got the same ring to it.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Great to have you here RB!

 

[TheRisenBishop]

Great to have you here RB!

Thanks Tortoise. It's great to be here! arty:

 

[TheRisenBishop]

Great to have you here RB!

Tortoise, do you remember when we initially discussed this case when you raised it as a possible trial to follow and I said to you I was concerned because at one point he left Facebook without any warning and only later recontacted her on the premise he was concerned for her safety after public order disturbances in London. This was a huge red flag to me when I first read it just after he was arrested and wondered if he had a controlling, manipulative antisocial personality disorder.
Helen was especially vulnerable by then and was bowled over by his concern and keen to meet up after he had remembered her enough to contact her to make sure she was okay.

To a grieving widow such thoughtfulness is the most romantic and welcome salve on her broken and fragile heart; to a psychiatrist it's controlling and manipulative behavior and a cause for concern.

Each day that passes and the more evidence we hear it makes me think we were right all along and he was a predator from the beginning.

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise, do you remember when we initially discussed this case when you raised it as a possible trial to follow and I said to you I was concerned because at one point he left Facebook without any warning and only later recontacted her on the premise he was concerned for her safety after public order disturbances in London. This was a huge red flag to me when I first read it just after he was arrested and wondered if he had a controlling, manipulative antisocial personality disorder.
Helen was especially vulnerable by then and was bowled over by his concern and keen to meet up after he had remembered her enough to contact her to make sure she was okay.

To a grieving widow such thoughtfulness is the most romantic and welcome salve on her broken and fragile heart; to a psychiatrist it's controlling and manipulative behavior and a cause for concern.

Each day that passes and the more evidence we hear it makes me think we were right all along and he was a predator from the beginning.

Yes, I do hope that when he is convicted they get a psychiatrist involved in his sentencing. He is so dangerous, not only in terms of what he did to Helen, but in terms of how he sees weakness in others and manipulates so easily with his teddy bear image.

His soul is black. I do not give him one inch as regards his past.

 

[mrjitty]

The Router connection seems like his major mistake

 

[Interested Bystander]

Hi Mr Jitty. Good to see you.

These mobile phones have a habit of getting people into trouble:happydance: don't they.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

The Router connection seems like his major mistake

Hi Mr J! You're spot on there. I wonder if it is an even bigger error than we realise at this stage? If he was in the habit of going around with that phone on his person with the SIM and Battery intact, even if he had switched it off, it would be traceable at the various telecom masts scattered around.

If these "contacts" coincided with cctv of him in the exact vicinity it's further circumstantial evidence of his culpability and obstruction of justice.

I'm curious as to what evidence they actually have relating to this.

Where no known cause of death is known, the circumstantial evidence must be the only obvious explanation - as per Lord Justice Goddard's ruling:

Goddard said: "... it is equally clear that the fact of death, like any other fact, can be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is to say, evidence of facts which lead to one conclusion, provided that the jury are satisfied and are warned that it must lead to one conclusion only."

I have a feeling that the circumstantial evidence in this case if overwhelming and will indeed lead to one conclusion. Given Goddard's strict ruling I don't see how the CPS would have proceeded otherwise.

In 2014, a man named David Parker hid the body of his estranged wife under his bed despite being under a restraining order. He lied and told the police she had gone on a cruise. If I recall he only got one year in prison for preventing the lawful disposal of a corpse. The CPS failed to charge him with manslaughter as they could not prove he played any part in her death despite being deeply suspicious of his testimony.

Which is why I think they have all they need to get a conviction against Stewart.

 

[Alyce]

Hi Mr Jitty. Good to see you.

These mobile phones have a habit of getting people into trouble:happydance: don't they.

Interesting that so many people don't realise the full extent of how clever phones are nowadays...they aren't called smart for nothing.

Although I would have expected a computer expert like IS to be fully aware !! ( insert irony emoji here )