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

[Tortoise]

What do you conclude from that, Tortoise?

If you are referring to the post I think you are, about today's witnesses, I have several thoughts - one might be that we are not being given a complete report about what each witness said, another is that he may have been shopping for widows and took one (lucky as it turns out) lady out but hastily returned her to her car (maybe she wasn't very wealthy?), another is that it could be to show how no one has an inkling of his real persona (doubt it), and yet another is that Helen was her normal self and gave no hint to anyone of being scared of violent (rhymes with slugs) who assaulted IS and would kill her for some paperwork or such. I'm at a bit of a loss, but maybe the prosecution will emphasise a meaning when they round up.

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&amp]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...iley-murder-trial-12464906?service=responsive



She texted him on 24th April. Is that not a bit weird? I thought he told the police he had lost his phone. At the moment I don't have a date this was said but here is a link to where I read it. Does anyone have a more precise date to rule this out?
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
My information is from Day One of the Trial at 14.55

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Stewart was asked at an early stage to allow police access to his phone, but he didn’t want to relinquish this to police because he said this is how Helen would contact him. Arrangements were put in place for him to have a new handset, so he could hand his existing phone over, but he claimed to have lost it and his phone was never provided to the police. He said Helen’s mobile phone had never been found."

[/FONT]http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/live-day-one-murder-trial-12427078[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]

Ah brilliant IB. It also looks like she could have texted him on 25th June and he replied.

 

[michelle230]

Mrs Cotter received 'desperate' sounding voicemail from Stewart

“On Monday, April 18, I got a call from Stewart who left a message on my voicemail. He’d said he had driven from Royston to Leatherhead (Surrey) to see Tony Hurley.

“He sounded desperate, upset, said he just didn’t know what he was doing. He said he wanted to speak to Tony.

“I told Stewart to speak to Tony that evening. Tony had looked after Helen’s investments.

“Stewart had not indicated what he wanted to speak to Tony about.

“Stewart left another voicemail on April 20. He wanted to know if Helen was able to access the money from her account and if she was able to, had she.

“He wanted to know if the police had contacted us. I wasn’t prepared to answer any of the questions until I spoke to our CEO to ascertain if it was OK to give this information to him.”


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12464906


my addition - so he doesn't contact her family or friends, doesn't contact the cleaner at Broadstairs...but is very keen to speak to her investment adviser

I agree - another nail hammered against him. Travelling all the way to Leatherhead to see Helen`s investment advisor? Numerous phone calls to his secretary wanting to speak to him? Wanting information? Now that`s real dedication...

 

[michelle230]

Well I don't have one shred of doubt that this man is just a plain lying sociopath and mercenary killer. There was no Joe or Nick. There was no punch in the stomach. This is someone with an absence of conscience and an absence of ability to feel love, he will have learnt how to mimic these things and fool people. He is a master of manipulation and unfortunately for people in his life, they will have been used and manipulated and he sees everyone, even his sons, as prey. That is hard to swallow. But see how he has used J to promote his story on his behalf. If his son can get this story out for him, he won't have to work so hard to convince the jury, people will doubt whether he would lie to his own child. These types lie just as easily as they breathe, and they have practiced it so well that people who come across them think they are charming, to believe otherwise means having to accept the opposite of what they thought they knew.

That is how sociopaths succeed. That is why Helen would not have wondered if he was drugging her, even though there was no other explanation for suddenly waking up after a 5 hour heavy sleep and not being able to walk off the beach. I think she would have felt drugged and known at a subconscious level that the reality was that it must be the one who was feeding her. If you trust someone it would be like falling from a cliff to suddenly contemplate that they actually want to harm you. The truth hurts, and people don't wish to believe the alternative because it seems incomprehensible that he is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. That is why I think some are struggling to accept the evidence here. The evidence could hardly be stronger, it is an open and shut case. The man rushed off to get her money before she was even cold. He killed a human being and her beloved pet and didn't collapse in grief, he felt none. There is no why in terms of what we would understand, this is just someone who doesn't operate by the same moral compass, doesn't need a 'why', just is.

All in my opinion.

So very true.

And just to clear up any (understandable) bewilderment about how could someone like IS, who seemed to have great relationships, be capable of doing what is alleged, here is but one example -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-charged-Claremont-serial-killings-case.html

 

[Interested Bystander]

Ah brilliant IB. It also looks like she could have texted him on 25th June and he replied.

Surely the police will have kept his number under serveillance? If not, they will come in for a lot of stick. He didn't give them the other phone that the two "gangsters" he said gave him. That surely, if it ever really existed (not) would have elicited a lot of information OR Helen's phone.

There may be another possibility for him to have use of a mobile with his number. I think it is possible to get a duplicate SIM.

 

[Joely 123]

I thought it was the 'new handset' that IS supposedly lost.

 

[MillyM]

Reporters getting it wrong again - couldn't have been April 13 - IS didn't report her missing until April 15- and the cess pit was drained on April 22

Reporter or Mavis? They are quoting what she said.

 

[MillyM]

The Jeep has been bugging me a bit, especially when considering the above. It seems counterintuitive to me that a nervous driver would feel more confident in a tank of a car.

Particularly when it comes to parking.

I wonder whose idea it was.

[Thanks for all the updates, A & T and anyone else I've missed]

Helen Bailey (@HelenEBailey) tweeted at 1:03 PM on Fri, Mar 04, 2016:
@ytimesmotoring @FIAT_UK @Jeep_UK Went to buy a Fiat 500X after owning Fiat 500. Test drove both. Bought Jeep. Love it. Has character!

twitter.com/HelenEBailey/status/705740517796093952

 

[Legally Bland]

[FONT=&amp]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...iley-murder-trial-12464906?service=responsive



She texted him on 24th April. Is that not a bit weird? I thought he told the police he had lost his phone. At the moment I don't have a date this was said but here is a link to where I read it. Does anyone have a more precise date to rule this out?
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
My information is from Day One of the Trial at 14.55

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Stewart was asked at an early stage to allow police access to his phone, but he didn’t want to relinquish this to police because he said this is how Helen would contact him. Arrangements were put in place for him to have a new handset, so he could hand his existing phone over, but he claimed to have lost it and his phone was never provided to the police. He said Helen’s mobile phone had never been found."

[/FONT]http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/live-day-one-murder-trial-12427078[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]

Great thinking. If the IMEI number from after IS 'lost' his phone matches the one that he used in the supermarket then it's an (even more) obvious lie.

 

[Tortoise]

Great thinking. If the IMEI number from after IS 'lost' his phone matches the one that he used in the supermarket then it's an (even more) obvious lie.

It explains why they've shown the Tesco footage and used the witness statements then. To show he lied about his phone being missing. They needed the Tesco incident to show it was the same phone, and that's why he denies it was him in Tesco.

 

[Legally Bland]

It explains why they've shown the Tesco footage and used the witness statements then. To show he lied about his phone being missing. They needed the Tesco incident to show it was the same phone, and that's why he denies it was him in Tesco.

That's exactly what I was thinking, but it would be a pretty stupid thing to do. Much safer to bin the phone, get a new one and get your provider to change the phone number to your old one.

 

[michelle230]

It explains why they've shown the Tesco footage and used the witness statements then. To show he lied about his phone being missing. They needed the Tesco incident to show it was the same phone, and that's why he denies it was him in Tesco.

Hmm - interesting. Would they not have asked the store security guard for a statement or to ID? Also possibly a bank transaction showing a debit to Tesco that day or maybe cash used? Or maybe IS took fright and decided that no shopping was needed?
And another good point raised about IS`s phone being under surveillance. Was it? Doesn`t seem like it!

 

[Interested Bystander]

I thought it was the 'new handset' that IS supposedly lost.

I don't think so because he wouldn't let the police take his phone and then told them he had lost it.

I haven't read anywhere that he bought a new one but it is possible. He certainly turned down the offer of another phone from the police.

 

[snoopydog]

It explains why they've shown the Tesco footage and used the witness statements then. To show he lied about his phone being missing. They needed the Tesco incident to show it was the same phone, and that's why he denies it was him in Tesco.

I thought he was in Tesco with Helen. Was the phone not meant to have been lost well after then?

 

[MillyM]

Just posting up a few snippets from this article by the local Royston reporter.


When asked if she had indicated when she would return, Mr Stewart, who is originally from Letchworth, said: “No, ‘cos it’s never happened before, no. And her phone is dead, well I say dead, it doesn’t ring, it goes straight to answer machine.”

I dont know why a technically minded person would describe the phone as dead ? if it is going to ansafone.




He was asked if she is ever likely to have been a victim of any sort of abuse, to which Mr Stewart said: “No, I know she’s a very strong person. It would be very hard to abuse Helen, she’d come back at you very strongly.”


trying too hard to get a point across there perhaps ?





He also had to look up her phone number and date of birth while on the call, and said he didn’t know the address of their Broadstairs cottage.

That's a lot of rather basic info that he doesnt seem to know





http://www.royston-crow.co.uk/news/...orting_partner_helen_bailey_missing_1_4852537

On this report he knew her date of birth at least:

"Mr Stewart gave his address and spelt out the name of Helen and gave her date of birth."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-played-9638876

 

[pinklilies]

It explains why they've shown the Tesco footage and used the witness statements then. To show he lied about his phone being missing. They needed the Tesco incident to show it was the same phone, and that's why he denies it was him in Tesco.

But if the cctv is clear enough to show what type of phone he used, surely it's clear enough to show if it was definitely IS and Helen?

 

[Ironside]

The Tesco footage is to show that particular number is definitely linked to IS even though the physical phone is AWOL. We have not yet heard what that phone did after Helen went missing but I'm sure it will be very interesting.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

[FONT=&]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...iley-murder-trial-12464906?service=responsive



She texted him on 24th April. Is that not a bit weird? I thought he told the police he had lost his phone. At the moment I don't have a date this was said but here is a link to where I read it. Does anyone have a more precise date to rule this out?
[/FONT][FONT="]
My information is from Day One of the Trial at 14.55

[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#141414][FONT="]"Stewart was asked at an early stage to allow police access to his phone, but he didn’t want to relinquish this to police because he said this is how Helen would contact him. Arrangements were put in place for him to have a new handset, so he could hand his existing phone over, but he claimed to have lost it and his phone was never provided to the police. He said Helen’s mobile phone had never been found."

[/FONT]http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/live-day-one-murder-trial-12427078[FONT=&]

[/FONT]

Excellent spot !

I dont think we have an exact date for when IS said his phone was lost - but surely it must be before the late April and June calls were made to him.

 

[Tortoise]

But if the cctv is clear enough to show what type of phone he used, surely it's clear enough to show if it was definitely IS and Helen?

It won't be the physical handset they are looking at in the cctv but the signals from it which they will have plotted in a report of phone activity.

 

[Tortoise]

On this report he knew her date of birth at least:

"Mr Stewart gave his address and spelt out the name of Helen and gave her date of birth."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-played-9638876

It's not disputed that he gave it but it was stated that he had to look it up while the operator waited.