GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #3

[cottonweaver]

Ah, I wonder if Helen had, recently, talked of it being about time she did revise her interim Will and make a few changes !

Ms King-Jones said the draft will she helped create “was intended to be an interim will, to give [Ms Bailey] peace of mind that there was something in place and that she could work on it.”

It's possible.
One things is clear, the person he attempted to initiate most contact with, on her "disappearance" was Tony Hurley.

Sad to hear he was present as witness at the earlier will and to hear he had full POA.

ETA with squamous - yes can appreciate what Sinfield's children were thinking about the will change.

 

[hunkerdown]

Inheritance tax

Under cross examination Ms King-Jones confirms that if Ms Bailey died before marrying Stewart he would have had to pay inheritance tax at 40 per cent above assets received above £325,000. If they were married and then she died he would not have paid any tax.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416


ah, a bit odd. If she changed her Will in 2014, she should have revised the IT policy as well.
no doubt defence will use this as a reason why he would not murder her

I think this lends weight to something going wrong that day and him murdering Helen without much forward planning (could explain much of his hurriedly put together story afterwards). I don't doubt his intention all along was to murder poor Helen (quite possibly after they were married).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snoopydog]

Could be. She had certainly publicly talked about IS' sons becoming increasingly independent so she might not have been feeling so much that she had to leave IS so much in order to provide security for O and J. I imagine the Sinfield side might come back into it more...

Haha maybe that was the motive! Maybe she was going to do a new will including them back into it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

Inheritance tax

Under cross examination Ms King-Jones confirms that if Ms Bailey died before marrying Stewart he would have had to pay inheritance tax at 40 per cent above assets received above £325,000. If they were married and then she died he would not have paid any tax.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416

But then she'd also took out the insurance policy to cover the inheritance tax so he was no worse off.

 

[icemaiden65]

New draft said will would not be revoked "even if Ms Bailey died before marrying Stewart"

In the new draft to her will, Ms Bailey inserted a statement declaring she was expecting to marry Ian Stewart and that the will would not be revoked if she married him, and would remain effective even if she died before marrying him

“That is not a standard provision.” said Ms King-Jones.

Ms King-Jones said the draft will she helped create “was intended to be an interim will, to give [Ms Bailey] peace of mind that there was something in place and that she could work on it.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416

The wording in bold leaps out at me! Who would be concerned about the new draft will being revoked if Helen died before marrying IS? I can understand her not wanting the hassle of rushing to make a new will immediately after marriage, hence the statement that it would not be revoked if she married him - but why insert that it would remain effective if she died before they married? If the will had been signed and witnessed then isn't it done and dusted regardless - and she was making provision for IS of course? How could it be revoked? Well - we all know that it's most likely to be revoked now but surely IS didn't push for her to have that written in? Seems really unusual and highly suspect to me.

 

[Alyce]

That's probably why she took out the insurance policy to cover IT though..... so he could afford it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But he couldnt if they were not married.
Unfortunately for him, it appears that Helen had not changed the terms of the Trust ( policy ) because the solicitor said that, if they were not married, then IS would have been liable for the IT.
Good line for the Defence though

 

[Moll]

But then she'd also took out the insurance policy to cover the inheritance tax so he was no worse off.

Exactly - so it won't help the defence,will it?

Just seen Alyce's post...perhaps he was just confused, like me!

 

[snoopydog]

But he couldnt if they were not married.
Unfortunately for him, it appears that Helen had not changed the terms of the Trust ( policy ) because the solicitor said that, if they were not married, then IS would have been liable for the IT.
Good line for the Defence though

I'm getting confused. I thought it said already she had a life insurance police worth over a million to cover inheritance tax and he was the beneficiary? If she had that he's got that money to pay it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

But then she'd also took out the insurance policy to cover the inheritance tax so he was no worse off.

The way I am reading it, from the solicitors evidence, is that IS would have had to pay the IT if he was not married to Helen.

These kind of IT policies are usually set up with standard wording and cover spouse, children etc....

So in order for IS to be able to * benefit* from the policy (ie be able to have access to this insurance pay out in order to pay Helens tax bill ) he would have to be specifically named in the policy ( being as he was not related to her ).

It sounds as though this had not happened.
Remember they were keeping the engagement/marriage a secret.

So Helen thought she had done the necessary by putting IS into the Will.
What she had clearly not done was update the Life Insurance Policy ( Trust ) to pay out to IS if need be.
LI policies are usually ( although not always ) done via a financial advisor and we know Helen had an advisor.

If she had done everything via her solicitor, they would have advised her to amend the LI policy. But, if , as seems likely, she had done the LI policy via her advisor, he would not necessarily know that she had changed her Will to benefit IS and would therefore not advise her to change the life insurance policy.

The possible fall out from keeping things a secret !

As I said, it will be a great line for the Defence. Why would IS want to kill her and have to pay IT at 40% on her estate.

 

[snoopydog]

I think it's clear her provisions were sufficient and exactly what he would have got had they been married or not. half of us here are missing the point she had an insurance policy in his name for the inheritance tax. She'd clearly gone out her way to make sure he'd be ok no matter if they were married or not.

I think she was going to change the will to include the sinfields again and he had to act.

I also have this niggle in my head of him chipping and chipping away at her about how stressed he was in case anything happened to her and he couldn't cope again being put out the house etc etc etc. He's a fly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wolfcub]

I have long suspected that resentment was the leading factor with the money being a VERY nice bonus...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really speaking, if we are presuming that he is a type of sociopath, he is interested only in lining up his future with greed (and without remorse), so why presume what he had (financially) left him satisfied? He might not think that he had enough wealth to be going on with into the future and wanted to secure more. But you are right - 'control' as well as money comes into it: poor Helen, in spite of feeling she had to do the 'right thing' by IS since her late husband did not sort out their finances for her, was probably actually manipulated into feeling this way by IS (i.e. changing her will, making provisions in favour of IS) who, as a sociopath, would be adept at making it look like she made those decisions of her own free will. Then, once this was done, since the marriage would change nothing, he would quickly tire of her as he 'has to be in control' of everything, so she would now be 'excess to requirement' if indeed he could not get power of attorney over her as he may have planned...On the depression website depression.org, it explains a lot about sociopathy amongst which:
Sociopaths are known for their superficial charm, calculative and controlling behavior, which is one of the main reasons why they are able to trick people and charm them with their smiling faces and good natures in a relationship. Relationships with sociopaths are really difficult to maintain as sociopaths are also masters of manipulations and they tend to take whole control of the relationship and the other person involved, leaving them feeling inferior and unsatisfied. Sociopaths also never learn from their previous mistakes and they tend to commit the same mistake over and over again. They also never hesitate to manipulate their partners to gain control and power in the relationships and as they are remorseless, they use any means and methods possible to retain their control in the relationship. Relationships with sociopaths are often one way and do not last long as there is a lot of stress in the relationship and the partner is left feeling worthless and unhappy most of the time.

Read more http://depressiond.org/sociopath-sociopathic-personality-disorder/

In my experience, once the 'honeymoon' period is over (or basically, once they have engineered the situation - usually financially- in their favour, the 'charm' quickly evaporates as their patience is limited (we had a taste of this during his first 101 call). Also, they quickly become frustrated if the charm offensive is not having its effect or things do not go to plan - e.g. the police interactions with him focus on his strange behaviour and impatience, lack of self control at times, then silence at others (which seems at odds with the presumed charm and manipulative behaviour with those he has fooled - you would expect him to be a better actor than this) but it would appear that they wrong-footed him by his conceited (some have said stupid) refusal to believe (initially at least!) that he would be suspected of anything- that they would just take his word that Helen left of her own accord; and so the calm demeanor quickly crumbled...

 

[Squamous]

Spouses don't pay inheritance tax so I'm pretty sure the policy would be to cover it pre-marriage.

 

[Alyce]

Defence cross-examine Ms King Jones

Under cross examination Ms King-Jones confirms that if Ms Bailey died before marrying Stewart he would have had to pay inheritance tax at 40 per cent above assets received above £325,000. If they were married and then she died he would not have paid any tax.

Defence counsel Simon Russell Flint QC claims that despite Stewart being the primary beneficiary of Ms Bailey’s will, he was not guaranteed to funds in the event of her death.

He says: “This will doesn’t make any specific provision of any specific amount being left to Ian Stewart, it is entirely within the discretion of the trustee, and the trustee might determine I’m not going to give you a penny Mr Stewart.”

Ms King-Jones agrees this is the case, but adds: “It was an intended as an interim will. Where one doesn’t have immediate family or children or others, it’s very usual that somebody can’t quite decide whether somebody is to have a £10,000 legacy or a £50,000 legacy and this gave her time to consider about what to do.

“Helen Bailey clearly trusted her financial executor to carry it out


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416


here we go, she has explained it much better than I did in my comment

 

[cottonweaver]

But he couldnt if they were not married.
Unfortunately for him, it appears that Helen had not changed the terms of the Trust ( policy ) because the solicitor said that, if they were not married, then IS would have been liable for the IT.
Good line for the Defence though

BIB But isn't solicitor just giving the plain facts of this, don't think she is factoring in the "A £1.28 million life insurance policy was taken out by Ms Bailey to cover inheritance tax in the event of her death." if you get my drift.

 

[cottonweaver]

hold up

who is trustee and who is executor?

 

[Squamous]

BIB But isn't solicitor just giving the plain facts of this, don't think she is factoring in the "A £1.28 million life insurance policy was taken out by Ms Bailey to cover inheritance tax in the event of her death." if you get my drift.

I agree, she knows the law rather than which insurance policies HB had.

 

[Alyce]

I'm getting confused. I thought it said already she had a life insurance police worth over a million to cover inheritance tax and he was the beneficiary? If she had that he's got that money to pay it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This says he was the beneficiary for the pension policy.
Does not say he benefited from the LI policy.


Life insurance and pension arrangements

Helen Bailey had a Suffolk Life self-invested pension, set up two years ago, worth around £235,000. The named beneficiary is Stewart. On her death he would receive those funds.
A £1.28 million life insurance policy was taken out by Ms Bailey to cover inheritance tax in the event of her death

 

[snoopydog]

I'm sure both helen and IS knew her requests in that interim will would be followed. I think she was going to change this will and make a more permanent one and he killed her before she could do it.

I find it odd she wouldn't leave something to the sinfields ....even just a token amount. I reckon she hadn't decided what she wanted them to have yet and left it to IS thinking it would only be like that short term then he kills her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

Court breaks for 10 minutes

The court will take a 10-minute break.

 

[Alyce]

I'm sure both helen and IS knew her requests in that interim will would be followed. I think she was going to change this will and make a more permanent one and he killed her before she could do it.

I find it odd she wouldn't leave something to the sinfields ....even just a token amount. I reckon she hadn't decided what she wanted them to have yet and left it to IS thinking it would only be like that short term then he kills her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BIB totally agree