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

[SiSi]

Regarding the witnesses . . . I am confused as to how the evidence by the sons and younger son's girlfriend was of any benefit to the Prosecution?

And isn't it rather damning that they did actually appear for the Prosecution in the first place?

 

[neteditor]

Continuing the discussion regarding who the sons were witnesses for:

If both the defence and the prosecution have the same interest in a witness, how is it decided if they are brought in as a witness for the prosecution or for the defence? Does the prosecution have priority?

I'm just wondering how it was decided that the sons would be witnesses brought in by the prosecution, rather than than defence?

What I assume is that the prosecution choose their witnesses and they are cross examined by the defence. Then, when the prosecution are done, the defence compiles their witnesses, excluding those they have already cross examined from the prosecution's case. Is that correct?

Or are all witnesses decided on in totality pre-trial? In which case, how is that arranged between the two sides...?

The Crown Prosecution Service (for England and Wales) prepares their prosecution case and serves their bundle of papers on the defence well in advance of the trial. The defence then gets a chance to prepare their cross examination of witnesses, and decide if there are other witnesses the CPS is not calling that might support the defence case.

If the defence wants to call witnesses they also have to let the CPS know in advance so they too can be prepared. If a late witness becomes apparent, say during a trial, there would be an adjournment while both sides ask the judge for permission to enter the witness into the record and are given time to prepare for it.

So yes basically the CPS gets to decide on witnesses first.

 

[Moll]

Pip, have the Stewart sons disowned their father? Have they been testifying for the prosecution?

I hope a lawyer will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think testifying for the prosecution of itself implies that the witness is disowning his relationship with the defendant. (I refer you to the recent Radio 4 Archers plot on coercive control, in which the mother was obliged to be a witness for the prosecution of her daughter because she had given a police statement!)

 

[pinklilies]

Good points about if and what Helen may have found out that morning. I was wondering if he had somehow had a hand in the cancellation of the wedding venues, was it three they had lost? If so, maybe Helen had queried this and he knew she was on to him. All speculation on my part.

 

[LozDa]

The Crown Prosecution Service (for England and Wales) prepares their prosecution case and serves their bundle of papers on the defence well in advance of the trial. The defence then gets a chance to prepare their cross examination of witnesses, and decide if there are other witnesses the CPS is not calling that might support the defence case.

If the defence wants to call witnesses they also have to let the CPS know in advance so they too can be prepared. If a late witness becomes apparent, say during a trial, there would be an adjournment while both sides ask the judge for permission to enter the witness into the record and are given time to prepare for it.

So yes basically the CPS gets to decide on witnesses first.

Thank you; very clear

I, too, wonder about the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution, so far, has seemed pretty wishy washy over what appears to be an open and shut case... Am I alone in thinking that?

I hope it picks up.

 

[Alyce]

Really? That shows how little I know then - I honestly thought they could be cross examined. So in effect, whoever grabs witnesses first keeps a tight hold with no further questions asked. Sheesh!

Learned something new there.

:thinking:

They can be cross examined ,but if they are being called by the Pros, then the Defence cross examines them at the same time.
They can also be called back as far as I know.

 

[Alyce]

Adding to my comment re sons evidence.

I dont think appearing during the Prosecution case says anything other than it made sense for the Prosecution to call them, as it fitted very well into the time line that the Prosecution needs to present to the Jury.
IMO they were both very supportive of their father -their evidence was very carefully worded.

 

[mrjitty]

Continuing the discussion regarding who the sons were witnesses for:

If both the defence and the prosecution have the same interest in a witness, how is it decided if they are brought in as a witness for the prosecution or for the defence? Does the prosecution have priority?

I'm just wondering how it was decided that the sons would be witnesses brought in by the prosecution, rather than than defence?

What I assume is that the prosecution choose their witnesses and they are cross examined by the defence. Then, when the prosecution are done, the defence compiles their witnesses, excluding those they have already cross examined from the prosecution's case. Is that correct?

Or are all witnesses decided on in totality pre-trial? In which case, how is that arranged between the two sides...?

In practice Counsel work it out between themselves.

There is no "trial by ambush" so the witnesses and all their briefs of evidence are disclosed to the defence pre-trial.

The prosecution will develop a list of witnesses they intend to call.

Of course there may end up being overlap however this is not really an issue as neither Counsel will want to call a witness who is hostile to their case.

So if someone is truly more appropriate as a defence witness then it is likely that defence will want to call that witness because they will want to lead the witness's evidence in chief. Prosecution will prefer to cross examine that witness. So this can be agreed between counsel.

A witness who is truly pretty neutral like the sons make a good prosecution witness, and the defence can cross examine.

We have seen in big trials like Pistorius that it can get pretty tactical.

The prosecution frequently does not call all its witnesses - which leaves it open to the defence to call them.

So then it can happen that neither side calls them.

Games within games!

 

[Alyce]

Case called on

The case has now been called on. Stewart is sitting in the dock wearing a dark coloured jumper with a shirt underneath. Jurors are now being called in.

 

[Alyce]

Search dog handler gives evidence

The first witness is Stephen Polley, who will speak about a search dog visit to the couple’s £1.5million home in Royston. Mr Polley is a dog handler, for the Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service. He tells jurors: “The victim recovery dog is used to assist in the recovery of deceased victims. Forensic evidence, the dog will search for blood, bodies and body parts using the scent from all of those. “This particular dog, when he wants to indicate, he freezes with his head pointed towards whatever he has found. “The dog initially was to work in tandem with the dive team, who recover bodies, the idea being that the dog could help find drowned victims from underwater.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651

 

[Alyce]

Fumes from septic tank would have confused dog

Mr Polley is asked by prosecutor Stuart Trimmer that if the body was in the cess pit at the time on April 22, whether the dog would have smelt this. He replied: “For the dog to show interest and indicate we need the scent to be in the area. “These lids used to cover septic tanks and drains are designed to stop smells coming out of that area. “So to my mind, there was no scent coming from that for the dog to find. “The dog could not work out in its head, the body scent from the amount of excrement, urine and other material in that septic tank.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651

 

[neteditor]

I've sat through a lot of trials in my journalism days and sometimes it's not apparent until later in the evidence why a certain thing was done. It might be that there is evidence later which fails to corroborate what some witnesses have said and might serve to diminish the credibility of their evidence etc. This trial has a long time to run, so at this stage, anything could happen!

 

[Alyce]

Residue' from body necessary to alert dog

Mr Polley is now being cross examined by the defence. He states that if Helen’s body had been lying on the ground outside, by the entrance to the cess pit a few days before, it would have been very unlikely that the dog would have picked this scent up. He reiterates that there was no indication at all from the dog around the area of the cess pit. “The dog did not even show an interest”, he answered. However, Mr Polley said there would have to be residue from the body of Helen for the dog to pick up a scent. He said if Helen’s body had been taken to the cess pit in a duvet or some other kind of cover, the dog wouldn’t have picked up any scent.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651


my comment - another benefit to IS of using the duvet, other than for transportation of the body

 

[Alyce]

Former owner describes cess pit

That’s the end of Mr Polley’s evidence. There will now be a statement from Michael Shannon, who is retired. He said: “In 1974 I moved to Baldock Road in Royston. We were there until 2013 when the house was sold to Helen and Stewart. “Over the years we were there we made changes to the structure and I had a garage built at the side of the house. “The house had a well when it was built in 1899, when we moved in, the well now formed a cess pit. It was not covered by a building, until I had the garage built over it. “There was an inspection plate put over the cess pit which became part of the concrete floor to the garage.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651

 

[mrjitty]

Adding to my comment re sons evidence.

I dont think appearing during the Prosecution case says anything other than it made sense for the Prosecution to call them, as it fitted very well into the time line that the Prosecution needs to present to the Jury.
IMO they were both very supportive of their father -their evidence was very carefully worded.

Yes exactly

In general the prosecution has a duty to present all the relevant evidence and you would not say the sons came across as true defence witnesses

Also, if the defence called them, then it opens them up to X

So this way round suits the defence

 

[Alyce]

Couple were shown cess pit before buying house

“I was present when Helen and Stewart visited the house to view it before buying it. “I went round the house with them. I recall pointing out to them the inspection plate in the garage and telling them that underneath is the cess pit. “I met the couple socially on several occasions. I had asked by police the arrangement I had made to empty the cess pit when I had the house. “The cess pit was emptied three months before I sold the house in July 2013. “We had it emptied about every three of four years.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651


ah, more evidence that IS was well aware of the cess pit

 

[mrjitty]

They can be cross examined ,but if they are being called by the Pros, then the Defence cross examines them at the same time.
They can also be called back as far as I know.

Yes they can be recalled.

Also (rarely) if a witness turns hostile in Court, prosecution can apply to have them declared a hostile witness and X them.

The limitation for the prosecution in relation to the sons is because they are a Crown witness, the Crown then cannot aggressively question them.

 

[Alyce]

Artist friend met writer 'a few days' before she went missing

There will now be a statement read from Jay Nolen-Latchland, who is an artist. “I’ve been asked by police about my interaction with Helen. “I first came to the police’s attention when I was named in an article by the Telegraph on May 6, 2016. I first became friends with Helen about five years ago, both of us had been widowed. “We chatted online and over the phone regularly. “I met Helen for the first time in London in November 2015. “Both of our partners were ill at this time, so we had a lot in common. “We met again in February 2016, and planned to meet again in Hitchin on May 4, 2016. “I’ve never met Stewart before Helen was reported missing. I last contacted Helen a few days before she went missing when we made a lunch arrangement in May.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651


another friend who never met IS, until after Helen's murder

just for accuracy - the witness name is Jay Nolan-Latchford

 

[michelle230]

Adding to my comment re sons evidence.

I dont think appearing during the Prosecution case says anything other than it made sense for the Prosecution to call them, as it fitted very well into the time line that the Prosecution needs to present to the Jury.
IMO they were both very supportive of their father -their evidence was very carefully worded.

I felt re the boys evidence that the situation was handled very delicately. Particularly with O, it was pretty factual. I think that the last question referred to whether IS had ever mentioned Joe and Nick and he replied no.

 

[Alyce]

Husband was 'unemotional' on Helen awareness walk

“I set up the Where is Helen Bailey? Facebook page. “As part of our campaign we organised an awareness walk in Royston - this is when I met Stewart for the first time. “In the run up to the walk on May 22 I was in contact with Stewart via text to co-ordinate a response if I was contacted by the press. “Stewart insisted in paying for the leaflets we were going to distribute on the walk. “We met at the house in Royston to pick them up. Myself and my husband arrived at the house at 10.15am on May 22. “Stewart invited us in for a coffee and showed us round the ground floor of the house, namely the kitchen, hallway and lounge. “As we moved from room to room, Jamie never left his side. “We were aware members of the press were going to be present at the awareness walk for Helen. “I was surprised when Stewart said he would come over with us to wave the group off. “Jamie also followed us across. Throughout the whole day I found Stewart to be unemotional and very contained in his manner.”


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-more-12512651