But isn't his story that it was something concerning Helen and her business, or that of her late husband?
Anyway - how much worse could it be than this?
GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #1
- Thread starter MelmothTheLost
- Start date
- Status
But isn't his story that it was something concerning Helen and her business, or that of her late husband?
Anyway - how much worse could it be than this?
But then you'd have to discount the drugging, unless Nick and Joe did that too.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,028
- Reaction score
- 61,237
Thanks for the links IB and Snoopy
So, as far as I can see ( and there may be something I have missed )
If IS claims some kind of mental inability to continue with his trial, he would be put into hospital and the trial will continue without him and reach its verdict
If he claims some kind of physical inability to continue, I cannot find a direct explanation as to what would happen, but my best guess is that, after allowing him a reasonable period of time to recover, the trial would continue - and if IS was still not physically well enough to be present in court, they would connect him via a video link.
If he claimed he was not even able to be present via a link, then I presume this would put him into the serious illness category and that the rule would be the same as for mental incapacity and the trial goes on without him.
So, as far as I can see ( and there may be something I have missed )
If IS claims some kind of mental inability to continue with his trial, he would be put into hospital and the trial will continue without him and reach its verdict
If he claims some kind of physical inability to continue, I cannot find a direct explanation as to what would happen, but my best guess is that, after allowing him a reasonable period of time to recover, the trial would continue - and if IS was still not physically well enough to be present in court, they would connect him via a video link.
If he claimed he was not even able to be present via a link, then I presume this would put him into the serious illness category and that the rule would be the same as for mental incapacity and the trial goes on without him.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,028
- Reaction score
- 61,237
TRIALS IN ABSENCE
14E.1 A defendant has a right, in general, to be present and to be represented at his trial. However, a defendant may choose not to exercise those rights, such as by voluntarily absenting himself and failing to instruct his lawyers adequately so that they can represent him.
14E.2 The court has a discretion as to whether a trial should take place or continue in the defendant’s absence and must exercise its discretion with due regard for the interests of justice. The overriding concern must be to ensure that such a trial is as fair as circumstances permit and leads to a just outcome.
If the defendant’s absence is due to involuntary illness or incapacity it would very rarely, if ever, be right to exercise the discretion in favour of commencing or continuing the trial.
Trials on Indictment
14E.3 Proceeding in the absence of a defendant is a step which ought normally to be taken only if it is unavoidable. The court must exercise its discretion as to whether a trial should take place or continue in the defendant’s absence with the utmost care and caution.
Due regard should be had to the judgment of Lord Bingham in
R
v
Jones
[2002] UKHL 5, [2003] 1 A.C. 1, [2002] 2 Cr. App. R 9.
Circumstances to be taken into account before proceeding include:
i) the conduct of the defendant,
ii) the disadvantage to the defendant,
iii) The public interest, taking account of the inconvenience and hardship to witnesses, and especially to any complainant, of a delay; if the witnesses have attended court and are ready to give evidence that will weigh in favour of continuing with the trial
iv) the effect of any delay,
v) whether the attendance of the defendant could be secured at a later hearing, and
vii) the likely outcome if the defendant is found guilty.
Even if the defendant is voluntarily absent, it is still generally desirable that he or she is represented.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/p...tice-directions-III-custody-and-bail-2015.pdf
14E.1 A defendant has a right, in general, to be present and to be represented at his trial. However, a defendant may choose not to exercise those rights, such as by voluntarily absenting himself and failing to instruct his lawyers adequately so that they can represent him.
14E.2 The court has a discretion as to whether a trial should take place or continue in the defendant’s absence and must exercise its discretion with due regard for the interests of justice. The overriding concern must be to ensure that such a trial is as fair as circumstances permit and leads to a just outcome.
If the defendant’s absence is due to involuntary illness or incapacity it would very rarely, if ever, be right to exercise the discretion in favour of commencing or continuing the trial.
Trials on Indictment
14E.3 Proceeding in the absence of a defendant is a step which ought normally to be taken only if it is unavoidable. The court must exercise its discretion as to whether a trial should take place or continue in the defendant’s absence with the utmost care and caution.
Due regard should be had to the judgment of Lord Bingham in
R
v
Jones
[2002] UKHL 5, [2003] 1 A.C. 1, [2002] 2 Cr. App. R 9.
Circumstances to be taken into account before proceeding include:
i) the conduct of the defendant,
ii) the disadvantage to the defendant,
iii) The public interest, taking account of the inconvenience and hardship to witnesses, and especially to any complainant, of a delay; if the witnesses have attended court and are ready to give evidence that will weigh in favour of continuing with the trial
iv) the effect of any delay,
v) whether the attendance of the defendant could be secured at a later hearing, and
vii) the likely outcome if the defendant is found guilty.
Even if the defendant is voluntarily absent, it is still generally desirable that he or she is represented.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/p...tice-directions-III-custody-and-bail-2015.pdf
pinklilies
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,071
- Reaction score
- 102
I still think he did not want to marry her, don't think he ever had any intentions to, hence all the secrecy. He was due to inherit plenty from her, in the event of her death, without marriage anyway. The lump sum of £1.8 million, the large family home in Royston and the cottage at Broadstairs. Apart from the lump sum, HB going missing still provided him with all of these things, plus the cars, and a monthly allowance of £600 (although it's claimed he did try to up this to £4000)
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/live-day-one-murder-trial-12427078
Maybe he got a widows pension after he lost his wife and he didn't want to lose it through re-marrying. The prosecution state the murder had 'money as its driving motive' and maybe he wasn't prepared to lose any of it. Jmo.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/live-day-one-murder-trial-12427078
Maybe he got a widows pension after he lost his wife and he didn't want to lose it through re-marrying. The prosecution state the murder had 'money as its driving motive' and maybe he wasn't prepared to lose any of it. Jmo.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,028
- Reaction score
- 61,237
Quite long but an interesting read
For very many years the law of England and Wales has recognised the right of a defendant to attend his trial and, in trials on indictment, has imposed an obligation on him to do so. The presence of the defendant has been treated as a very important feature of an effective jury trial.
But for many years problems have arisen in cases where, although the defendant is present at the beginning of the trial, it cannot (or cannot conveniently or respectably) be continued to the end in his presence.
This may be because of genuine but intermittent illness of the defendant (as in R v Abrahams (1895) 21 VLR 343 and R v Howson (1981) 74 CrAppR 172); or misbehaviour (as in R v Berry (1897) 104 LT Jo 110 and R v Browne (1906) 70 JP 472); or because the defendant has voluntarily absconded (as in R v Jones (Robert) (No 2) [1972] 1 WLR 887 and R v Shaw (Elvis) [1980] 1 WLR 1526).
In all these cases the court has been recognised as having a discretion, to be exercised in all the particular circumstances of the case, whether to continue the trial or to order that the jury be discharged with a view to a further trial being held at a later date.
The existence of such a discretion is well-established, and is not challenged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal. But it is of course a discretion to be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings; a defendant afflicted by involuntary illness or incapacity will have much stronger grounds for resisting the continuance of the trial than one who has voluntarily chosen to abscond.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020220/jones-1.htm
For very many years the law of England and Wales has recognised the right of a defendant to attend his trial and, in trials on indictment, has imposed an obligation on him to do so. The presence of the defendant has been treated as a very important feature of an effective jury trial.
But for many years problems have arisen in cases where, although the defendant is present at the beginning of the trial, it cannot (or cannot conveniently or respectably) be continued to the end in his presence.
This may be because of genuine but intermittent illness of the defendant (as in R v Abrahams (1895) 21 VLR 343 and R v Howson (1981) 74 CrAppR 172); or misbehaviour (as in R v Berry (1897) 104 LT Jo 110 and R v Browne (1906) 70 JP 472); or because the defendant has voluntarily absconded (as in R v Jones (Robert) (No 2) [1972] 1 WLR 887 and R v Shaw (Elvis) [1980] 1 WLR 1526).
In all these cases the court has been recognised as having a discretion, to be exercised in all the particular circumstances of the case, whether to continue the trial or to order that the jury be discharged with a view to a further trial being held at a later date.
The existence of such a discretion is well-established, and is not challenged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal. But it is of course a discretion to be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings; a defendant afflicted by involuntary illness or incapacity will have much stronger grounds for resisting the continuance of the trial than one who has voluntarily chosen to abscond.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020220/jones-1.htm
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,028
- Reaction score
- 61,237
This is the case referred to in the link above.
This case was a robbery, where the defendant did not appear at his trial but did later appear during the appeal. The words I have bolded are interesting.
Judgments - Regina v Jones (On Appeal From The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))
As the judge made clear to the jury in summing up, the only possible explanations of the forensic evidence were either guilt or that there had been a massive police conspiracy to contaminate the defendant's clothing before it was examined by the forensic science laboratory.
Although the defendant, now in custody, has been present at his appeal and able to instruct the solicitors and leading counsel who now represent him, no submission in support of the second explanation has been advanced to this court.
Nor is it suggested that, if he had attended his trial, he could or would have produced an innocent explanation for the contamination of his clothing, his presence in the vicinity of the robbery or fleeing from the police, or that he was unconnected with the walkie-talkie found near the scene.
In our judgment there is no reason, in all these circumstances, to regard his conviction as unsafe or his trial as unfair and accordingly his appeal against conviction is dismissed."
This case was a robbery, where the defendant did not appear at his trial but did later appear during the appeal. The words I have bolded are interesting.
Judgments - Regina v Jones (On Appeal From The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))
As the judge made clear to the jury in summing up, the only possible explanations of the forensic evidence were either guilt or that there had been a massive police conspiracy to contaminate the defendant's clothing before it was examined by the forensic science laboratory.
Although the defendant, now in custody, has been present at his appeal and able to instruct the solicitors and leading counsel who now represent him, no submission in support of the second explanation has been advanced to this court.
Nor is it suggested that, if he had attended his trial, he could or would have produced an innocent explanation for the contamination of his clothing, his presence in the vicinity of the robbery or fleeing from the police, or that he was unconnected with the walkie-talkie found near the scene.
In our judgment there is no reason, in all these circumstances, to regard his conviction as unsafe or his trial as unfair and accordingly his appeal against conviction is dismissed."
I cannot grasp why OS or anyone else would believe the-and-bull story about "Joe and Nick".
I would imagine that being the younger brother OS might well find it hard to believe his father could be guilty of such an awful crime. The phrase "clutching at straws" comes to mind and he repeats what his father has said even if deep down he doesn't really believe the story. Especially if IS has until this point been a supportive Dad. How hard it must be for both those young men.
I find it very telling that JS has never visited his father in prison.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,028
- Reaction score
- 61,237
This was a fraud case with more than one defendant, but the principle is similar.
One of the defendants, Corbett, was taken ill during the trial.
Whilst the discretion of a trial judge to continue a trial in the absence of one of the accused through illness should be exercised sparingly, an accused who challenged the exercise of that discretion had to show that there was a real rather than a speculative risk of prejudice to his defence if the trial continued.
Lord Justice Roch said that the judge had refused applications to discharge the jury. He did not consider it proper to require Corbett to attend the trial, but concluded that he would suffer no prejudice if his representatives were given adequate time to report to him on the evidence still to be given by his co-accused and to take instructions about cross-examination.
Counsel for Corbett had submitted that a defendant had a right to be present at his trial. He relied on the decision in R v Howson (1982) 74 Cr App R 172 in which had been said that the judge had a discretion to continue a trial in the absence of one of the accused through illness, but that it was "a discretion which we would expect to be sparingly exercised and never if the accused's defence could be prejudiced by his absence".
It could not be said in the present case that justice had not been seen to be done. The judge had not insisted on Corbett's presence at the trial. If the fact that he had remained at a substantial distance from the court had caused difficuties for those representing him, those were difficulties of his own making.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...-risk-of-prejudice-must-be-shown-1146848.html
One of the defendants, Corbett, was taken ill during the trial.
Whilst the discretion of a trial judge to continue a trial in the absence of one of the accused through illness should be exercised sparingly, an accused who challenged the exercise of that discretion had to show that there was a real rather than a speculative risk of prejudice to his defence if the trial continued.
Lord Justice Roch said that the judge had refused applications to discharge the jury. He did not consider it proper to require Corbett to attend the trial, but concluded that he would suffer no prejudice if his representatives were given adequate time to report to him on the evidence still to be given by his co-accused and to take instructions about cross-examination.
Counsel for Corbett had submitted that a defendant had a right to be present at his trial. He relied on the decision in R v Howson (1982) 74 Cr App R 172 in which had been said that the judge had a discretion to continue a trial in the absence of one of the accused through illness, but that it was "a discretion which we would expect to be sparingly exercised and never if the accused's defence could be prejudiced by his absence".
It could not be said in the present case that justice had not been seen to be done. The judge had not insisted on Corbett's presence at the trial. If the fact that he had remained at a substantial distance from the court had caused difficuties for those representing him, those were difficulties of his own making.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...-risk-of-prejudice-must-be-shown-1146848.html
I'd be interested to hear what you think he might have done that would be worse than killing his fiancée and her dog, burying them (possibly alive) in a cesspool full of excrement.
And as Helen's heir, he would presumably continue to receive royalties for her books, unless she had specifically left that to someone else.
Yes, one can excuse OS for wanting to believe it. But I can't understand how anyone else could swallow this pack of lies.
michelle230
Active Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 533
- Reaction score
- 68
Millie, I agree with your succinct observations
however I think all concerned will do their utmost to keep him "safe".IMO from being around at the trial, I have a very strong gut feeling that there is a huge determination for justice to be done!! I think previous history adds very much to this determination to out the truth.
I also strongly feel that IS simply cannot take the stand. Whist at the start maybe there was a chance depending on how things unfolded, in light of the way the facts have simply and calmly and undramatically come out, (thanks hugely to the dignity and factual answering of questions of the key witnesses), I think the penny may have dropped that it is hopeless for IS to take the stand and will do nothing but strengthen the already strong case against him. Already his defence is both ludicrous and laughable, and to have him on the stand to probe his two dimensional garbage well...!! And he looks empty and terribly afraid and in shock and to me anyway, seems totally incapable of stringing a sentence together , let alone give coherent answers to stringent questioning.
He is in a corner for sure. He cannot take the stand. He cannot even plead guilty (plea bargaining?) because this is no "ordinary murder" (sorry for that but if you get my drift...) In no particular order but just my own thoughts -
- the revulsion of where Helen`s body was found
- the inevitable questions over the sudden death of his first wife
-the loss of his two sons
-the fact of his previously good reputation and standing
He know he will lose absolutely everything. The loss of the money he thought was sure to come his way, and the thought of a very, very long prison sentence (which I don`t think he will survive well at all) in my view are less traumatic than the points above.
He is well and truly stuffed. Every which way.
I think he will have a massive breakdown...actually I think that process has begun.
All in my own view of course!
Michelle
michelle230
Active Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 533
- Reaction score
- 68
It will be very interesting when all the financial evidence comes out. I think IS was retired due to ill health and got a work pension. I wonder if there was life insurance when his first wife died so suddenly and unexpectedly.
Michelle
Michelle
Millie, I agree with your succinct observations
IMO from being around at the trial, I have a very strong gut feeling that there is a huge determination for justice to be done!! I think previous history adds very much to this determination to out the truth.
I also strongly feel that IS simply cannot take the stand. Whist at the start maybe there was a chance depending on how things unfolded, in light of the way the facts have simply and calmly and undramatically come out, (thanks hugely to the dignity and factual answering of questions of the key witnesses), I think the penny may have dropped that it is hopeless for IS to take the stand and will do nothing but strengthen the already strong case against him. Already his defence is both ludicrous and laughable, and to have him on the stand to probe his two dimensional garbage well...!! And he looks empty and terribly afraid and in shock and to me anyway, seems totally incapable of stringing a sentence together , let alone give coherent answers to stringent questioning.
He is in a corner for sure. He cannot take the stand. He cannot even plead guilty (plea bargaining?) because this is no "ordinary murder" (sorry for that but if you get my drift...) In no particular order but just my own thoughts -
- the revulsion of where Helen`s body was found
- the inevitable questions over the sudden death of his first wife
-the loss of his two sons
-the fact of his previously good reputation and standing
He know he will lose absolutely everything. The loss of the money he thought was sure to come his way, and the thought of a very, very long prison sentence (which I don`t think he will survive well at all) in my view are less traumatic than the points above.
He is well and truly stuffed. Every which way.
I think he will have a massive breakdown...actually I think that process has begun.
All in my own view of course!
Michelle
I think you are completely right Michelle, and that statement about him not being in a fit state is very telling. He cannot face what he has done and is already falling apart.
I guess they will provide some psychiatric input now but the case will inevitably continue. He now knows how strong the case against him is and he knows he has lost everything.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
mrazda71
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,136
- Reaction score
- 11,429
Are you following the Alvin and Kathy Liknes, Nathan O'Brien trial? Between this, Katie Rough and Helen I think I man need to put myself on a Websleuths time out when they're concluded. 💔😢
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Staff online
-
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 128
- Guests online
- 2,533
- Total visitors
- 2,661