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

[Squamous]

He had all her email passwords and FB..according to the police, who said it saved them time.

However, this is probably where the fraud charge comes in, bcos he did not have the right to access her account, even if he has the password.

Yes, and the charge was for theft before it was apparent that Helen was dead iirc?

 

[Alyce]

Is it not different cases, and just the WGC link that is attached to his case?

Whether Joe and Nick, or not, IS said Joe had been 'dealt with'. If they are real, I am curious as to who dealt with him, by what means, and when, and how he came to have that information? It's all sounding very fictional and underworld when it comes to that side.

Think u could be right and it is only WGC that links to IS

 

[LozDa]

He had all her email passwords and FB..according to the police, who said it saved them time.

However, this is probably where the fraud charge comes in, bcos he did not have the right to access her account, even if he has the password.

This and the note are what I would say are the biggest flaws in his defence.

There's no reason he should have made this amendment to her standing order.

Do we know exactly what time the amendment was made to the SO? If it's after 2.45pm, there's literally nothing he can say that doesn't make him look guilty of her murder.

If she were missing, she obviously couldn't have given permission to amend the SO and would therefore object to the amendment made as soon as she has left. Especially being that she was so careful with money.

If he blames needing money for Joe and Nick, it would've been a one sum balance. Not a recurring SO.

The only reason he could've felt clear to make this change is if he knew she wouldn't be able to ever object.

 

[DollyDiamond]

I happened to be re-reading 'A Final Reassurance' in Helen's Book this afternoon. And shall re-type this section.

I have never had any doubt that JS would approve of my publishing this account of my grief, despite its deeply person nature. I have tried to be as accurate as my memory and my diaries permit, but if JS took a day-return trip from Heaven to Hertfordshire to comment on the narrative, I suspect he would vehemently dispute my recollection of some of the events during the 24 years we knew each other. I hope feel, on balance, that the book haas reflected him in death as he was in life: dignified, decent and gracious, a man with a kind, open heart and an infuriatingly stubborn mind.
**
Just want to add that I believe there can be anger within the grieving that opens many boxes of life lived with a beloved - and sometimes our questioning process seems harsh but it is all part of the tapestry of reflection.

I think Helen wrote about her marriage to JS with astonishing honesty and I admire her for that. It would have been far easier for her to portray the relationship as problem free and to have held back from any criticism of him. She was a fiction writer after all! But she decided, for the sake of other widows/widowers to tell it as it really was, not to produce an easily written, romanticised account. The quote from her book you reproduced is thoughtfully worded (as you would expect from such a gifted writer) but more important it is incredibly fair and even handed. I believe she has actually paid him the compliment of portraying him as he really was and not some 'photoshopped' more palatable version. He was not a bad man, just a difficult and at times controlling one, and it perhaps reveals something of her potential to find herself in the role of victim.

 

[Alyce]

The point re the fraud with Helen's sole bank account is that just by accessing this account, IS is committing fraud, even before he attempts to do anything.

Taking the money just compounds the fraud

.

 

[hunkerdown]

I don't do Facebook but is this what you see? This is no. 5 ?

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-pr...l?prop=30098775&sale=73500213&country=england

That's it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Interested Bystander]

But are those two cases and IS's all related on the listing, or just two randoms being heard before IS case tomorrow?

Sorry I am unsure. Possibly they are only a couple of very short items the Judge needs to deal with associated with other cases. Best done first thing before IS appears.

 

[peter010101]

Except that the Joe and Nick story seems to have come much later. I think in December 2016 and told to Oliver his son. I would imagine he must have said the same to the police at some point and that may have been earlier in his police involvement.

I am still wondering if he will attempt to take the stand and use this story.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'd assumed blushing: yes always a dangerous thing) that 'Joe&Nick' surfaced only after his arrest (esp. as only Oliver was told it). Saying it to the police already would indeed have justified arrest as it pretty much makes 'the note' a lie. Seems more likely it didn't come until December or at least some time after second arrest.

If he doesn't take the stand then he's abandoning the Joe&Nick story (as it can't otherwise be used). If he's on record with it, presumably the jury can hold its abandonment against him?

 

[Joely 123]

I want to commend the true Websleuths, within Helen Bailey's missing and murder - followed by this Trial of Ian Stewart.

I shall not ever be a natural Websleuth, and only came to join because of Helen. But I am in awe of the 'detective' ability you share in your commitment, and skill in finding the balance of truth towards justice.

The core group are amazing in informing all of us - helping to save questions turning in one's mind .. factual, practical, observational and I know we (members) would wish to thank you for everything.

I also think that hearing from new people about their experience, emotions and reflections on Helen's demise are a lovely juxtaposition.

Thank you x

 

[DollyDiamond]

This and the note are what I would say are the biggest flaws in his defence.

There's no reason he should have made this amendment to her standing order.

Do we know exactly what time the amendment was made to the SO? If it's after 2.45pm, there's literally nothing he can say that doesn't make him look guilty of her murder.

If she were missing, she obviously couldn't have given permission to amend the SO and would therefore object to the amendment made as soon as she has left. Especially being that she was so careful with money.

If he blames needing money for Joe and Nick, it would've been a one sum balance. Not a recurring SO.

The only reason he could've felt clear to make this change is if he knew she wouldn't be able to ever object.

It beggars belief he amended that standing order literally within an hour or so of killing her and little Boris and putting their bodies in a cesspit. A clearer indication of his motive it's harder to imagine! It will be fascinating to hear his explanation for that - and all the other damning evidence against him, not least how they met their fate and ended up in that cesspit. We haven't heard much about forensics yet though have we? I guess as he shared a home with Helen that's problematic as obviously their fingerprints and dna are all over everything. If only the police had spotted that hatch in the garage floor and lifted it the week she went missing, so much more would be known about cause of death in her and Boris. I struggle to believe he truly thought the bodies would never be found but its the only logical explanation for his actions.

 

[pinklilies]

This and the note are what I would say are the biggest flaws in his defence.

There's no reason he should have made this amendment to her standing order.

Do we know exactly what time the amendment was made to the SO? If it's after 2.45pm, there's literally nothing he can say that doesn't make him look guilty of her murder.

If she were missing, she obviously couldn't have given permission to amend the SO and would therefore object to the amendment made as soon as she has left. Especially being that she was so careful with money.

If he blames needing money for Joe and Nick, it would've been a one sum balance. Not a recurring SO.

The only reason he could've felt clear to make this change is if he knew she wouldn't be able to ever object.

I don't think I've seen this time line before...

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017...und-in-cesspit-and-her-partner-denies-murder/

Prosecution timeline - 11 April 2016
08:16 - 10:51 am Internet and phone records show that Helen Bailey was conducting searches on her iPad, sending emails and made one phone call.
10:51 am Email sent to a friends represents the last known time at which Helen was alive.
11:30 am Ian Stewart contacts doctor’s surgery to reschedule an appointment that was supposed to take place at that time. Stewart told police this was because Helen had come home upset from a trip to the shops.
12:13 pm Call from to Helen Bailey’s mobile phone from friend goes to voicemail.
2:27 pm Helen Bailey's bank account was accessed, with a standing order to Ian Stewart changed from £600 to £4,000. Stewart denies he carried out this transaction.
2:54 pm Ian Stewart goes to Bassingbourn Surgery to have a dressing changed - the missed morning appointment he rescheduled
3:02 pm Ian Stewart is filmed on CCTV at the Royston Household Waste Centre, disposing of a ‘white bundle’ and some boxes. Stewart says at some stage during the morning Helen had loaded his BMW with a duvet which had been soiled and a number of cardboard boxes to be disposed of.
3:18 pm Time by which Helen Bailey’s phone had been switched off.

ETA -

The court heard that Ian Stewart went to a solicitor’s office during the afternoon to drop some papers off, and told police that he returned home to find that Helen and Boris were not there.

 

[Cherwell]

Compare and contrast

Helen's words:

"I have never had any doubt that JS would approve of my publishing this account of my grief, despite its deeply personal nature."

Stewart's words:

“She knew she didn’t want to do children’s books anymore, and she didn’t want to do this sort of personal book [When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis]. She was too honest, it [the book] was much, much too personal.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/helen-bailey-murder-trial-case-12475974

 

[neteditor]

But are those two cases and IS's all related on the listing, or just two randoms being heard before IS case tomorrow?

Sorry I am unsure. Possibly they are only a couple of very short items the Judge needs to deal with associated with other cases. Best done first thing before IS appears.

Those first two listed are not related to the IS case. A production order is like a warrant for information. For example the police often need production orders from judges to request information (evidence) from businesses like banks and ISPs. The case numer listed is not the IS trial case number.

Judges often hear brief cases like these at the start of the court session before a longer running trial resumes.

 

[Alyce]

The point re the fraud with Helen's sole bank account is that just by accessing this account, IS is committing fraud, even before he attempts to do anything.

Taking the money just compounds the fraud

.

Just bringing this over as I should have added to the very relevant point that LozDa was making
. The timing is important, as she says, bcos if IS could have done the change of SO at a time when it was believed that Helen was still at home, then it could have been thought that it was Helen making the change....perhaps to ensure there was enough available money for IS to access, for bills etc, during her time away.
The fact that he had three attempts at making the change is what did for him imo.

 

[Squamous]

Compare and contrast

Helen's words:



Stewart's words:


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/helen-bailey-murder-trial-case-12475974

I do think her mum and others have said that the book tour and talking a lot about JS and her grief had been extremely draining. But you're right, that's different to saying she regretted the book. To be fair, I do think it would be hard to have your partner doing lots of public speaking and interviews about how wonderful their ex was (even a dead ex), but there's a difference between owning that feeling for yourself and projecting it onto someone else.

 

[DollyDiamond]

I don't think I've seen this time line before...

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017...und-in-cesspit-and-her-partner-denies-murder/

Prosecution timeline - 11 April 2016
08:16 - 10:51 am Internet and phone records show that Helen Bailey was conducting searches on her iPad, sending emails and made one phone call.
10:51 am Email sent to a friends represents the last known time at which Helen was alive.
11:30 am Ian Stewart contacts doctor’s surgery to reschedule an appointment that was supposed to take place at that time. Stewart told police this was because Helen had come home upset from a trip to the shops.
12:13 pm Call from to Helen Bailey’s mobile phone from friend goes to voicemail.
2:27 pm Helen Bailey's bank account was accessed, with a standing order to Ian Stewart changed from £600 to £4,000. Stewart denies he carried out this transaction.
2:54 pm Ian Stewart goes to Bassingbourn Surgery to have a dressing changed - the missed morning appointment he rescheduled
3:02 pm Ian Stewart is filmed on CCTV at the Royston Household Waste Centre, disposing of a ‘white bundle’ and some boxes. Stewart says at some stage during the morning Helen had loaded his BMW with a duvet which had been soiled and a number of cardboard boxes to be disposed of.
3:18 pm Time by which Helen Bailey’s phone had been switched off.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chilling to see that timeline laid out so starkly - I wonder, was Helen murdered between 10.51am when she sent her last email and 11.30am when IS rang the GP's surgery to postpone his appointment? Seems to me 39 minutes is a small window of opportunity to ensure shes unconscious from sleeping pills, and then suffocate her. Or did he call the GP while she was still alive, albeit in a drugged stupor/unconscious? The killings and dumping of the bodies in the cesspit had to have been done by 2.27pm, when he felt confident enough to go online and amend the standing order from Helen's bank account. Although I suppose he had until 2.54pm when he left the house for the doctors surgery to carry out the killings and dump the bodies in the cesspit. I can't bear to think of the minutiae and specifically when and how he killed poor little Boris.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Compare and contrast

Helen's words:



Stewart's words:


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/helen-bailey-murder-trial-case-12475974

I think the book was too personal for IS, not Helen! He had nothing to gain from her talking about her grief over her husband's death - apart from revenue from book sales of course!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Chilling to see that timeline laid out so starkly - I wonder, was Helen murdered between 10.51am when she sent her last email and 11.30am when IS rang the GP's surgery to postpone his appointment? Seems to me 39 minutes is a small window of opportunity to ensure shes unconscious from sleeping pills, and then suffocate her. Or did he call the GP while she was still alive, albeit in a drugged stupor/unconscious? The killings and dumping of the bodies in the cesspit had to have been done by 2.27pm, when he felt confident enough to go online and amend the standing order from Helen's bank account. Although I suppose he had until 2.54pm when he left the house for the doctors surgery to carry out the killings and dump the bodies in the cesspit. I can't bear to think of the minutiae and specifically when and how he killed poor little Boris.

Another possibility is when his phone was inactive between 11.43 and 12.59

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/live-day-one-murder-trial-12427078

See entry timed at 14.55

 

[Cherwell]

I do think her mum and others have said that the book tour and talking a lot about JS and her grief had been extremely draining. But you're right, that's different to saying she regretted the book. To be fair, I do think it would be hard to have your partner doing lots of public speaking and interviews about how wonderful their ex was (even a dead ex), but there's a difference between owning that feeling for yourself and projecting it onto someone else.

What struck me is that she had no doubt that JS would have approved of the book, however personal.
While Stewart's reaction is the opposite.

 

[perfectvirgo]

I will have a search back, later, for that evidence but from memory there was mention of up to 16 weeks evidence from the hair samples, with the rider that the earliest hair sample might have been contaminated and therefore narrowing it down to 12 weeks.

When you take into account that IS only got the prescription on January 24, 2016 - which was exactly 11 weeks before Helen died - there is a possibility that he had been using an earlier supply of tablets.

I agree, IS may well have stockpiled Zopiclone from earlier prescriptions. Helen's complaint of feeling sleepy we can take to be as a result of doses administered by IS over a period of weeks and possibly longer. I believe IS wanted to be sure Helen would be comatose so as to offer no resistance to non-violent suffocation. The occasion when she explained to her mum that she had fallen back to sleep for five hours one morning was, in my opinion, a day when IS rehearsed the act and proved to himself that his chosen dose of Zopiclone would afford a sickening, five-hour window of opportunity.