GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #2

[Alyce]

Thanks for that Cherwell - certainly did not do Hazell any good at all.

See link below re benefits or otherwise of a change of plea.

IS has absolutely nothing to gain by changing his plea now ( other than to terminate the stress of the trial for himself, I doubt he thinks of the stress he is causing others ).
At worst ( for him ) he will be found guilty and sentenced and then may be able to come up with something to form the basis of an appeal.
Or, he has a very slim chance of being found not guilty ( yep I can see the pink pigs flying overhead here as I type that ).
But either way, no reason for him to change his plea.





Am I too late to change my mind and plead guilty?

No. You can change your plea at any time, either at the beginning of your trial or during it. The consequence of doing so is that any credit you could have expected to receive for a guilty plea is substantially reduced if entered at a very late stage. In most cases you will only be entitled to a 1/10th discount in sentence if you plead guilty on the day of trial and if you wait until the witnesses have given evidence and then plead guilty, it is unlikely that you will be afforded any credit at all.


http://www.mulrooneycraghill.com/what-happens-at-a-crown-court-trial-an-introduction/

 

[Squamous]

I wonder who IS is planning to call as witnesses? His sons have already said they have no knowledge of Nick and Joe and they lived with IS and Helen throughout the relevant period. Who else would be able to testify? He can bring character witnesses but I can't think who would come as an alibi or with relevant factual information?

 

[Cherwell]

I imagine today's defence submissions will be more along the lines of whether certain evidence is agreed as admissable or maybe uncontended by both sides. Fairly boring stuff.

Wouldn't the prosecution also be in attendance in that case? And would the defendant's presence be necessary?

 

[mrjitty]

You're quite right, I'm getting muddled. I meant to echo the earlier comment expressing disappointment that no killer blow (no pun intented) seems to have yet been struck to the accused - though as we are all pretty much agreed, the circumstantial evidence against him is damning. In the name of justice for Helen and Boris, I hunger to see this despicable individual take the stand and answer for himself. But like all manipulators he is a coward and if he is intelligent enough to have worked out he cannot manipulate a jury with his crocodile tears and sub-Sweeney tales of tattooed, mystery ****s then he's intelligent enough to decline to give evidence. Either way it will speak volumes about him - but as I say, for the sake of his victims and the loved ones he has left devastated, I would like to see him in the dock, being made mincemeat of by the prosecution like a cornered rat.

As you say, the fireworks will start when he takes the stand.

Out of interest, do you not see the discovery of the hidden corpse in his possession as "killer evidence"?

Imagine (heaven forbid) if they had found the body hidden in the attic? Because that is effectively what happened.

 

[Cherwell]

Thanks for that Cherwell - certainly did not do Hazell any good at all.
...
IS has absolutely nothing to gain by changing his plea now ( other than to terminate the stress of the trial for himself, I doubt he thinks of the stress he is causing others ).
At worst ( for him ) he will be found guilty and sentenced and then may be able to come up with something to form the basis of an appeal.
Or, he has a very slim chance of being found not guilty ( yep I can see the pink pigs flying overhead here as I type that ).
But either way, no reason for him to change his plea.

BIB Hazell's alleged reason for pleading guilty was to spare the family further stress, but it was obvious that as there was no prospect of an acquittal, he didn't want further horrific details disclosed, for his own sake.

 

[mrjitty]

Wouldn't the prosecution also be in attendance in that case? And would the defendant's presence be necessary?

Counsel would be present - though perhaps only a junior

 

[mrjitty]

An experienced Counsel will take IS to the cleaners

 

[Interested Bystander]

One would have thought that somewhere on the internet this situation would have been discussed by legal bods or guidelines posted where on can easily find them. The only items I could find that vaguely might be associated were that after 4 weeks there might need to be an application for extension to the time allowed (but I excluded that as I don't see why IS would be involved there) and another where the Defence claimed there had been insufficient disclosure on the part of the Prosecution team (maybe IS would need to be there for that). I tend to feel that neither of these is very likely. Certainly, re the first point, we know the case has been slated for 7-8 weeks so I think that is dead in the water. Insufficient disclosure on the part of the Prosecution is a very vague possibility but I think unlikely.

Does anyone know whether, assuming it is not a change of plea when it will become public knowledge, whether we will likely hear what is being discussed today?

What about being unfit to take the stand or an appeal to stop the case as IS is too poorly? Only a thought!

 

[Squamous]

BIB Hazell's alleged reason for pleading guilty was to spare the family further stress, but it was obvious that as there was no prospect of an acquittal, he didn't want further horrific details disclosed, for his own sake.

The family had already sat through a discussion about whether Tia was alive or dead in some photos of her in sexual poses so I think he got no credit at all for it. I have no idea what he was planning to base his defence on!

 

[Cherwell]

What about being unfit to take the stand or an appeal to stop the case as IS is too poorly? Only a thought!

It's his choice whether he goes into the witness box or not.
And if he was "too poorly" to continue, then he would presumably be in no state to attend court today.

 

[Interested Bystander]

It's his choice whether he goes into the witness box or not.
And if he was "too poorly" to continue, then he would presumably be in no state to attend court today.

Agreed, but if the Defence is claiming IS is too poorly to take the stand it is different from his bloody minded refusal to do so.

 

[Cherwell]

Agreed, but if the Defence is claiming IS is too poorly to take the stand it is different from his bloody minded refusal to do so.

Yes, they are two separate possibilities, but I can't see that either would account for court time with just the defence and the defendant present.

 

[Alyce]

I think it was said earlier that there was no plan to sit tomorrow. I don't think it means anything.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But I think the news re no court tomorrow was only posted ( by Tara Cox ) at 4.30pm at the end of the trial round up
I also noted that the listing on the court site is dated at 16.30 hrs.
This was what made me think it was a new decision made at the end of yesterday's hearing and not something which was already pre planned for today.

 

[Florrie]

But I think the news re no court tomorrow was only posted ( by Tara Cox ) at 4.30pm at the end of the trial round up
I also noted that the listing on the court site is dated at 16.30 hrs.
This was what made me think it was a new decision made at the end of yesterday's hearing and not something which was already pre planned for today.

Ah that's interesting, I wasn't aware of that, thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

Counsel would be present - though perhaps only a junior

But the hearing note says Defence Counsel only to attend

 

[michelle230]

Hi some amazing posts as always!
I just remembered that actually on the Tuesday, the first day the jury sat, the Judge advised that there were a couple of days where the court would not be sitting. Today was one of them so this was known well in advance. I presumed it was because the Judge had other commitments on those days. Why IS is noted as attending today is a mystery.

 

[michelle230]

Nooooooooo! I just typed a long post with fancy multi quotes and all, and it logged me out! <scream>

Ah well, perhaps it's telling me to b***** off. If I get the opportunity I will retype when I've calmed down (hopping mad now)

Tortoise,
I made that mistake a while ago. So annoying. Now I save my post on Word so if it doesn`t go through, I log out, log in again and paste! Sorry to have missed what I`m sure was a great post!

 

[Alyce]

Hi some amazing posts as always!
I just remembered that actually on the Tuesday, the first day the jury sat, the Judge advised that there were a couple of days where the court would not be sitting. Today was one of them so this was known well in advance. I presumed it was because the Judge had other commitments on those days. Why IS is noted as attending today is a mystery.

Thanks Michelle...that clears that one up .........although ISs attendance is still a puzzle .........

 

[Alyce]

Ah that's interesting, I wasn't aware of that, thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Florrie, you were right - see Michelle's update

 

[Cherwell]

Yes, it was known that the trial would not be continuing today, but not (afaik) that the defence and IS would be required to attend.
Still, it doesn't look like any news is coming our way