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

[MillyM]

"In the call, Mr Stewart told the operator that it had been a "shock" when he had returned home on the previous Monday afternoon and discovered the note he claimed Helen had left.

He went on "Yes it was a shock, she had talked about it, but it was still a shock.

"She had talked about wanting space because things haven't been going well for her recently or for us. She's never done anything like this before."

Mr Stewart claimed he had been in contact with Helen's friends and her brother and none of them had heard from her.

Mr Stewart, who the court has been told was engaged to Helen Bailey, told the operator: "She has been very anxious and very worried about lots of things and she's very - she is a worrier, as in she's a natural worrier."

...Asked during the call if Helen had any "medical or psychological issues at all?" the defendant replied "Well she's, errr, well she's menopausal. That's the only medical issues she's got."

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

 

[Alyce]

Reporter or Mavis? They are quoting what she said.

Yes, good point. In which case, I am surprised that the Prosecution allowed it through, knowing the dates are incorrect.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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?

If you are talking about IS and H being seen in Tesco it is quite likely it is his original phone. One would expect him still to have the phone at that stage. It was after H's murder that he refused to give up his phone. I don't know if he has been seen using a phone after the date of her death. Can anyone confirm that he has?

However we do now have evidence that someone with whom he is not in usual contact rang his phone and he answered. She would have used the phone number known to her. If the phone was lost the only way she could have contacted him would be if he bought a new one and had his old number associated with it or he "found" his old one (doubtfully ever lost). She also texted him. Both of these events were after H's death.

 

[Alyce]

Stewart's account of day Helen went 'missing'

“In three years only spent one day apart when he was in ICU - the intensive care unit.

On Saturday, April 11, (Stewart) watched football, son went to play bowls, lounged around on Sunday, went for a dog walk. She [Helen] did some gardening.

“The Friday before Helen disappeared we found out that Brocket Hall in Royston couldn’t host wedding - third hotel we’d lost.

That really annoyed her. Frustration - she referred to it over the weekend.

“Monday - [Stewart] was due to have dressing changed. Helen stressed, so I changed the time, she gave me paperwork to take to the solicitor.

“In the morning Stewart said he went for a walk - she [Helen] was still going on about Brocket Hall. She wasn’t calm. She went to Tesco’s and came back, saying she never wanted to go in the car {Jeep} again. She went to her office, made our lunch, ate separately. Stewart went out at 3 to doctors, taking the BMW. He kissed her goodbye, asked her what she wanted for tea.

“Normal goodbye, she stood at window holding the dog. Returned around 5pm, drove to Royston, solicitor, Morrisons.

Got home, Helen wasn’t here, found note. The note said ‘I need some time, space to myself, going to Broadstairs, please do not contact me in any way, love you more, LV.’

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


my edit here - Saturday was April 9
Brocket Hall is close to Welwyn Garden City, not in Royston

So on the Saturday and the Sunday, IS can give a good overview of what he did ( or didnt do )
but no real account of his time on the Monday

Helen went to Tescos / Helen made our lunch / Helen went to her office

but nothing about what he did for 7 or so hours, other than the walk, which would surely not have taken very long, with him being so unwell

the line about she stood at the window, holding the dog - I find that particuarly horrible

 

[Tortoise]

Is it true what he says about Brocket Hall? Surely it would be a simple matter of picking a date when it was available, that's my way of thinking anyway.

 

[Alyce]

Is it true what he says about Brocket Hall? Surely it would be a simple matter of picking a date when it was available, that's my way of thinking anyway.

It could be that Brocket had double booked the date that Helen had chosen and there were no other suitable dates available in September or close to when she wanted to have the wedding.

Although it did sound, from Tracey's evidence re the Monday morning * chat *, that Helen was happy and excited - so either she had found other potential venues or this is another exaggeration/lie from IS.

 

[pinklilies]

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

Ahh, thank you, the penny's finally dropped [emoji51]

 

[Legally Bland]

My first thought on the Tesco footage was that IS had a dual SIM phone, and used another number for private stuff, and the security guard called the police using the 'wrong' number. But I think that would have been mentioned in the prosecution's opening statement.

 

[pinklilies]

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.

I think I must have been having a mental block or something, I'm with you now thank you.

 

[michelle230]

Another excellent piece of evidence (I know it`s been mentioned but just wanted to put it out there again!) "The property" being the one in Broadstairs.

“The property had an active WiFi network and Helen Bailey’s iPhone came in range of the WiFi and connected to the network, so he must’ve been in possession of her mobile phone at the time,” Mr Trimmer said.
On June 7 another officer went to the home and found the router had been removed. It was later found packed away at their property in Royston.

 

[Joely 123]

I've been thinking - and reading other media streams.
It is very strange for IS to go to the Bowls match whilst not sure if he could make it due to his health, and yet could go after Helen 'departed'. And more strange that he didn't tell JS that evening about the note Helen - supposedly - left. Jamie has gone into the garden to look for her and Boris .. surely something would have been said whilst they ate the Chinese food.
And I picked up on Boris being ill. Surely if Boris were ill, Helen would have discussed this with her Dachshund friends - or others .. perhaps she did and this has been wiped by the expert.
And when there were further transcripts - through media - of IS 999 phone call - it was strange to learn that he couldn't remember certain aspects of Helen - but able to say Menopausal and grey hair - well black with grey highlights as his final definition.
He emphasises many times how Helen is a worrier, high anxiety nature. I suggest that Helen was perhaps a highly sensitive being, but was more nervous after her trauma and loss of JS. Although she expresses well in her book, how her emotions roll. Understandably. And she had become more stressed by drugs.

He waits until December to tell OS that there have been threats from Nic & Joe .. and yet has told the Police that Helen left a note at Hartwell to say she needed space. He didn't think of his Sons' need to know this for their own protection.

I think Jamie is suspicious of his Father now - and has distanced himself .. perhaps shows in his 'evidence' and in not visiting prison.

Beyond this - we all know he got into gear and rushed around, determining his ploy for money and longterm security. I can only imagine how Helen's Brother and family think now.

 

[Tortoise]

Another excellent piece of evidence (I know it`s been mentioned but just wanted to put it out there again!) "The property" being the one in Broadstairs.

“The property had an active WiFi network and Helen Bailey’s iPhone came in range of the WiFi and connected to the network, so he must’ve been in possession of her mobile phone at the time,” Mr Trimmer said.
On June 7 another officer went to the home and found the router had been removed. It was later found packed away at their property in Royston.

I'm wondering if he had a plan and changed his mind about it later. I think he would have known her phone would connect and that's why he took it in the cottage. He wanted to show Helen had been there, so indicate to the police not to search at Royston, and perhaps he didn't think police would discover he was there at the same time Helen's phone connected. But then later thinking about it, realised he had left a trail by telling John he was going there, panicked and went back to collect the hub. Or something like that.

The other thing I thought about was keys to the cottage. I wonder if they kept a spare in Royston, or if Helen had one on her bunch of keys and left another with a neighbour in Broadstairs or just with the cleaner. Because if there was only one in Royston and he didn't pick up a key from a neighbour/cleaner, it would show that he must have used Helen's. Not that they need more evidence! Just a random thought.

Of course we still haven't heard from the cleaner yet.

 

[Tortoise]

Alexandra McGarry said: “He was frail. Oliver told me he was even struggling to reach up into the cupboards and get food out and things like that.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/17/helen-bailey-murder-trial-childrens-author

I think he was putting on an act, because he knew it would give him an alibi if he advertised to everyone at the time that he wasn't physically capable of lifting dinner trays etc. He's not exactly a short man, having to reach up to cupboards. Presumably Helen could reach ok and she was shorter.

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]"It's a little cottage we've got down there. Neighbours and I have been down there and she's not there."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...al-fiance-told-police-had-checked-everywhere/

Oops again![/FONT]

 

[michelle230]

I'm wondering if he had a plan and changed his mind about it later. I think he would have known her phone would connect and that's why he took it in the cottage. He wanted to show Helen had been there, so indicate to the police not to search at Royston, and perhaps he didn't think police would discover he was there at the same time Helen's phone connected. But then later thinking about it, realised he had left a trail by telling John he was going there, panicked and went back to collect the hub. Or something like that.


The other thing I thought about was keys to the cottage. I wonder if they kept a spare in Royston, or if Helen had one on her bunch of keys and left another with a neighbour in Broadstairs or just with the cleaner. Because if there was only one in Royston and he didn't pick up a key from a neighbour/cleaner, it would show that he must have used Helen's. Not that they need more evidence! Just a random thought.

Of course we still haven't heard from the cleaner yet.

It`s possible re phone at the cottage that he wanted to give the impression that Helen had been there, but if he told people he was going there (sooo concerned - but obviously he had to go there as part of the pretence of caring), I think it`s more likely he didn`t realise about the phone connecting until later which is why he then took the router.
I wondered about the key as well. I found it very telling that it was John who went there immediately, not him. And of course John didn`t have a key so couldn`t go inside. The likelihood is that Ian had Helen`s key and so used that or if not, then the cleaners. I would think it more likely that he did have Helen`s key at home - makes it look even worse that it was John who had no key, yet nevertheless rushed there.

 

[michelle230]

I think evidence shows that everything he did under the pretence of being concerned was because he was pushed into it by others being proactive and making him look very bad indeed.

 

[Alyce]

I'm wondering if he had a plan and changed his mind about it later. I think he would have known her phone would connect and that's why he took it in the cottage. He wanted to show Helen had been there, so indicate to the police not to search at Royston, and perhaps he didn't think police would discover he was there at the same time Helen's phone connected. But then later thinking about it, realised he had left a trail by telling John he was going there, panicked and went back to collect the hub. Or something like that.

The other thing I thought about was keys to the cottage. I wonder if they kept a spare in Royston, or if Helen had one on her bunch of keys and left another with a neighbour in Broadstairs or just with the cleaner. Because if there was only one in Royston and he didn't pick up a key from a neighbour/cleaner, it would show that he must have used Helen's. Not that they need more evidence! Just a random thought.

Of course we still haven't heard from the cleaner yet.

bringing this back over from John Bs evidence on Thursday January 12

Mr Bailey said the next day, Friday, he asked Stewart via text message if the cleaner had a key to the house, and whether the cleaner could go in.

“He got the cleaner’s phone number and got in touch with the cleaner. By lunchtime on Friday, he got in touch with me and said that the cleaner had been in and there was no sign of Helen,” Mr Bailey added.


I am guessing IS got the keys from the cleaner when he arrived on the Saturday. Perhaps wouldnt want to use a spare set ( if there was one ) in case it looked as though he was using Helen's own set.

 

[michelle230]

I've been thinking - and reading other media streams.
It is very strange for IS to go to the Bowls match whilst not sure if he could make it due to his health, and yet could go after Helen 'departed'. And more strange that he didn't tell JS that evening about the note Helen - supposedly - left. Jamie has gone into the garden to look for her and Boris .. surely something would have been said whilst they ate the Chinese food.
And I picked up on Boris being ill. Surely if Boris were ill, Helen would have discussed this with her Dachshund friends - or others .. perhaps she did and this has been wiped by the expert.
And when there were further transcripts - through media - of IS 999 phone call - it was strange to learn that he couldn't remember certain aspects of Helen - but able to say Menopausal and grey hair - well black with grey highlights as his final definition.
He emphasises many times how Helen is a worrier, high anxiety nature. I suggest that Helen was perhaps a highly sensitive being, but was more nervous after her trauma and loss of JS. Although she expresses well in her book, how her emotions roll. Understandably. And she had become more stressed by drugs.

He waits until December to tell OS that there have been threats from Nic & Joe .. and yet has told the Police that Helen left a note at Hartwell to say she needed space. He didn't think of his Sons' need to know this for their own protection.

I think Jamie is suspicious of his Father now - and has distanced himself .. perhaps shows in his 'evidence' and in not visiting prison.

Beyond this - we all know he got into gear and rushed around, determining his ploy for money and longterm security. I can only imagine how Helen's Brother and family think now.

Joely,
I think we will never understand the whole of his thought process because I think he didn`t even understand himself half the time what he was doing and planned/plotted/ran around like a headless chicken most of the time. The minute things started to unravel, and as more and more of his mad plans fell apart, then his mind must have been working on frenzied chaos, panic and overdrive. He dug himself such deep, irreparable holes with such breathtaking ease. He must be beyond rage at himself. Even the simple idea of the note - seemed such a great idea at the time to keep the hounds at bay for a while and give himself clean up time - that has truly and hugely come back to bite him in the rear!

 

[LozDa]

I'm wondering if he had a plan and changed his mind about it later. I think he would have known her phone would connect and that's why he took it in the cottage. He wanted to show Helen had been there, so indicate to the police not to search at Royston, and perhaps he didn't think police would discover he was there at the same time Helen's phone connected. But then later thinking about it, realised he had left a trail by telling John he was going there, panicked and went back to collect the hub. Or something like that.

The other thing I thought about was keys to the cottage. I wonder if they kept a spare in Royston, or if Helen had one on her bunch of keys and left another with a neighbour in Broadstairs or just with the cleaner. Because if there was only one in Royston and he didn't pick up a key from a neighbour/cleaner, it would show that he must have used Helen's. Not that they need more evidence! Just a random thought.

Of course we still haven't heard from the cleaner yet.

BBM I'd said this much earlier in the thread, but had trouble explaining what I meant - you've written it much more coherently!

I think this is the only explanation that makes sense to me. I can't think of any other reason for turning the phone on but to purposely create a trail for her phone having been at Broadstairs and therefore indicate that she had been there.

I think when things heat up and searches are done, he realises this isn't just going to go away and the police are going to look into this much more than writing it off as a depressed woman gone walkabouts. So the Wi-Fi ping is now incriminating, rather than alleviating suspicion and attention away from Royston. Hence hiding the router.

I think he genuinely thought he could get away with it without much fuss and that he could just suggest she was anxious and depressed and not much would be done.

The arrogance of that concerns me. I'd be very interested in knowing how a coroner decides on "Unexpected Epileptic Fit" and what information went towards this ruling. I know this is a separate case, but I genuinely feel like part of his arrogance and assumption at the fact that no one would pay much attention to Helen being missing, is because he's hoodwinked in the past and got away with it. Big time.

 

[Cherwell]

About the key to the Broadstairs house ... is it that unlikely that he would have his own key? That would only be three altogether, one for Helen, one for the cleaner and a spare - doesn't seem excessive.