This is my first post - like many newcomers to Websleuths, I have been following the trial with interest, and have found the ongoing thread hugely informative. I would like to thank all the regular posters, and occasional contributors, for their insightful and articulate thoughts.
I did not know Helen, but I am much the same age as she was when she was murdered, and I am also a writer (albeit in a slightly different field). I moved to a village just outside Royston shortly before she disappeared, and initially read about her disappearance in our local newspaper. Like many on the board, I felt drawn to the case because of the way in which her spirit shines through her writing, both in her novels and the Planet Grief blog and book. I just feel very emotionally invested in the case, and keen to see justice for Helen.
The prosecution made it clear at the outset that IS's motive was money. Helen was clearly a wealthy woman, but some have questioned why he would murder her when - if they married - he could claim a significant part of her fortune in the event of a divorce. He and his sons were also already leading an extremely comfortable life, apparently at Helen's expense.
I feel it's worth flagging up two things. Firstly, Helen's income from book royalties was cited (at the commencement of the trial) as being in the region of £5,000 per month. This seems a lot, but would be an average amount over the course of a year - book royalties are never paid more often than quarterly, and often only every six months or even once every twelve months. Importantly, the amounts are not necessarily predictable - sales can ebb and flow - and they are also paid gross to the writer, not net, so Helen would have to pay at least a third of this income in tax. We do know that she had other investments, so the royalties were possibly not her only income - nevertheless, in terms of book fees, she would have had a fluctuating wage, not a steady one. Notably, her books did not make her millions - it takes a world-beating, adult bestseller to do that - and do not seem even to have been a full-time job. (Whilst married to JS, she was working in the licensing business by day, and writing her teen fiction books by night). Secondly, in the police interview that took place at Hartwell Lodge, IS stated that she no longer wanted to write "children's books" (a dismissive term, in my view), and did not want to write anything more in the Planet Grief vein. It would appear that Helen - like many creative people - had reached the end of the road in terms of a particular career path, and was perhaps considering a change of direction, or pondering pastures new. Being careful thus far (with investments etc) had rightly bought her the ability to choose what to do with her time and talents, and I suspect that IS resented this - especially as she seems to have been in no hurry to work during the spring months of 2016. Helen herself would know that the money she had in the bank would not last forever unless she garnered her resources fairly carefully. Hence the relatively modest £600 per month payment into their joint account.
My theory is that IS would have been frustrated by Helen's general care over money, having imagined a life of profligate spending once they established their relationship and moved in together. Their house was large and elegant - even flash, with its outsize, outdoor pool - but must have been costing a large sum to refurbish and maintain. Hence, with no income from IS, and an uncertain stream of money from semi-retired Helen, finances would generally have been much tighter than he might have expected. Helen would have definitely been worried about the ongoing cost of such a big residence (with the rebuild of the conservatory etc - building work is not cheap round here, as I have discovered!) and she seems to have set firm limits on the wedding budget. All of these things would have had to be financed from capital, not her writing income - which was itself set to decrease over time.
I was much struck my IS's comments to the police when reporting her missing "WE have quite a large house..." "a cottage WE have down there (in Broadstairs)". All very lord-of-the-manor ... but when it came to Boris "SHE's got a dog...". I also found his reference to her writing (which by this point was not delivering him all that he craved) as a "hobby" profoundly disrespectful and offensive.
His exploitation of her, and concomitant lack of respect, at least during the latter months of her life, breaks my heart. I do hope justice is done, and swiftly.
