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

[michelle230]

And the dog, Michelle. There will be great anger that he killed an innocent little dog. Never underestimate the British love for pets.

Oops Cherwell = you are right...dear Boris...yes- add that to the pot of horrors!

 

[michelle230]

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. 

I think * I`d * have a nervous breakdown lol. I find following just one case hugely time consuming!

 

[michelle230]

Alyce - PMed you but your mailbox is full xx

 

[Florrie]

Oops Cherwell = you are right...dear Boris...yes- add that to the pot of horrors!

Boris makes it worse because Helen was clearly devoted to him. Loads of photos abound the internet with the two of them together.

It's what makes this case all the more heartbreaking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dalsglen]

One of the boys said IS had been ill since he was young, something like had been ill for 17 years or so... I wonder if he was really ill or just a complete sponger?

 

[Florrie]

The term "hiding in plain sight" comes to mind if he really hasn't worked for the past 17 years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

I cannot grasp why OS or anyone else would believe the -and-bull story about "Joe and Nick".

Why wouldn't Stewart - and more to the point, why wouldn't Helen - tell the police about the threats and assault?
Why wouldn't he warn his sons about these men at the time?
Why wouldn't he tell the police about these dodgy characters as soon as Helen's absence began to cause concern?
Why would he wait over six months after his arrest to mention it at all?

I can't help wondering if IS confided in OS on the day Helen died. OS's statement talks about what he "would've" been doing that day rather than what he actually did do. That can be a red flag in statements. In which case IS may have come up with the Joe and Nick story in an attempt to protect OS and to encourage OS to get the Joe and Nick diversion story out there.

[FONT=&amp]On the evening of April 11, 2016, I would’ve been attending cadets as that is a usual occurrence for a Monday and a Wednesday.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“I would’ve gone home to change. I did see dad, it was a brief conversation because dad knows my Monday night routine.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“It was normal. Everything was normal. I didn’t see Helen or the dog.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“Usually I would be home at 10pm, but this night was different and I was delayed coming home. I got home about 11.30pm, and I didn’t see anyone.”[/FONT]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12452783

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

Good points.Was there actually ANY financial advantage for him to marry Helen? Or could he get everything he wanted with POA?

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

Done the same kind of thing several times before? I'd be looking into all of his previous partners/love interests. And what was he hiding on his phone and computer I wonder...

 

[ColourPurple]

Me neither Cherwell, me neither. It's so obviously a made up story to try and deflect the blame.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's the adult equivalent of "It wasn't me, honest... a big boy did it"

 

[ColourPurple]

One of the boys said IS had been ill since he was young, something like had been ill for 17 years or so... I wonder if he was really ill or just a complete sponger?

According to JS

[FONT=&quot]“He had an operation on his intestines but he also has a long-standing illness which weakens the muscles around his throat. This can cause breathing difficulties. Generally the illness caused him to be tired at times.”

[/FONT]http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12452783

 

[Alyce]

Good points.Was there actually ANY financial advantage for him to marry Helen? Or could he get everything he wanted with POA?

The POA would only kick in if Helen was alive but incapable of managing her affairs. Helen * missing * is not an advantage with a POA.

However, if Helen had died and there was a body to prove the death and no suspicious circumstances ( as per Milly's post re the cliff top ) then he would get the lot via the Will.
So if he could engineer this, then it would be better than marriage. Marriage would not guarantee him a half share of the money, he would have to persuade Helen to allow this.

 

[Alyce]

Just to add ......... I've had a spring clean

 

[LozDa]

If IS has had some sort of a mental breakdown (not saying he has, just wondering about scenarios), what would be the procedure? If he wasn't mentally incapacitated at the time of the crime, but is now... Any precedent for that?

After Michelle's description of him in court and after having listened to his boys in court because of something he's done, I'm wondering if it's all just hit home and he's realised this is the end of the road for him. Perhaps that's broken him mentally...?

Would it just default to the defendant not present guidelines that Alyce posted, or is there a different procedure?

 

[MillyM]

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.

Well, you know, like I said on here before, we might only hear once the trial has ended and the verdict in, of any previous convictions, and/or acquaintances start jumping up in the press with stories.

 

[MillyM]

Agree, LozDa and I do wonder if this is what his legal team are angling for. Worst case scenario and guilty on all charges, he ends up in a relatively cushy prison hospital psych ward and not in with the hard crims who might want to settle a score on a man killing a nice middle aged lady.

 

[Alyce]

If IS has had some sort of a mental breakdown (not saying he has, just wondering about scenarios), what would be the procedure? If he wasn't mentally incapacitated at the time of the crime, but is now... Any precedent for that?

After Michelle's description of him in court and after having listened to his boys in court because of something he's done, I'm wondering if it's all just hit home and he's realised this is the end of the road for him. Perhaps that's broken him mentally...?

Would it just default to the defendant not present guidelines that Alyce posted, or is there a different procedure?

I wonder. I am reminded of Shrien Dewani who successfully fought for 4 years to avoid extradition to South Africa on grounds of being unfit to plead.

However, am not sure how this works with a trial already in progress.
From what I read earlier today, in one case, the trial continued and a verdict was given as the Judge ruled the defendant had not been disadvantaged by not being present.
In another case, the defendant was successful and granted leave to appeal his sentence, due to the fact that his prolonged ill health had meant he was unable to attend and give evidence.

Either
1.IS is playing the ill health card.
2. IS is crumbling and defeated, faced with the evidence he is now hearing in court.

based on Michelle's observations in court, it sounds like 2

 

[Alyce]

Adjournments on the grounds of ill health

The fifth point that may be of significance here is that, sometimes, it may appear to the court at the outset or after hearing some at least of the rival arguments that in truth the matter before it is one on which one or other side is bound to succeed.

The closer the case appears to one or other of these extremes the less likely it is that proceeding will represent an injustice to the litigant.

Thus, in Boyd & Hutchinson (A Firm) v Foenander[2003] EWCA Civ 1516 the Court of Appeal proceeded with the hearing of an appeal on the basis that it would refuse an adjournment if it concluded, as it did, that the appeal had no real prospect of success.

This appears consistent with the conclusions of Neuberger J in Fox v Graham
that where the court refuses a litigant in person an adjournment it may proceed in his absence if satisfied either
(a) that it is right to grant the applicant the relief sought
or
(b) that the application is plainly hopeless.


http://www.civillitigationbrief.com...ounds-of-ill-health-a-detailed-consideration/





The BIBS are mine....so that sounds as though the trial may carry on if it is obvious that a guilty ( or not guilty ) verdict is 99% certain to be achieved, on the basis of the evidence heard so far.

 

[Cherwell]

I'd just like to put my last question back into context, as a couple of other people have quoted it and responded.

I cannot grasp why OS or anyone else would believe the -and-bull story about "Joe and Nick".

Why wouldn't Stewart - and more to the point, why wouldn't Helen - tell the police about the threats and assault?
Why wouldn't he warn his sons about these men at the time?
Why wouldn't he tell the police about these dodgy characters as soon as Helen's absence began to cause concern?
Why would he wait over six months after his arrest to mention it at all?

Unless they [Joe and Nick] had something on him that was so bad/criminal he would NOT want either the police or his sons knowing about...?

how much worse could it be than this?

How much worse? Myriad scenarios.

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.

My point was that this "Joe and Nick" could hardly get him into any worse trouble than he's in now.

Of course it's moot as we must all know they never existed.

 

[Cherwell]

The POA would only kick in if Helen was alive but incapable of managing her affairs. Helen * missing * is not an advantage with a POA.

However, if Helen had died and there was a body to prove the death and no suspicious circumstances ( as per Milly's post re the cliff top ) then he would get the lot via the Will.
So if he could engineer this, then it would be better than marriage. Marriage would not guarantee him a half share of the money, he would have to persuade Helen to allow this.

But haven't we been told that Helen had already made a will in his favour, with the specification that it would not be invalidated by their marriage? So his position was the same, married or not.