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

[snoopydog]

Yes could be . She might even have changed her mind on selling the flat that day.

The blog post she did about him being unwell I also found very telling. I'll have to look it up. She was talking about the thought of living with someone who was dying of an illness after previously losing her husband suddenly and IMO it sounded like she was saying she wouldn't do it. E.g she couldn't face losing someone to a slow and drawn out illness after her previous experience. When she had first gone missing I'd read that as she wanted to leave him because she wouldn't risk another (what she was beginning to consider worse) loss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

One thing I can't remember... who first brought up that Helen had once written about wishing she could disappear and start a new life? We haven't heard IS mention it in his phone call to report her missing. I know that she definiitley wrote it but do we know if it was IS who informed the police about it?

 

[hunkerdown]

One thing I can't remember... who first brought up that Helen had once written about wishing she could disappear and start a new life? We haven't heard IS mention it in his phone call to report her missing. I know that she definiitley wrote it but do we know if it was IS who informed the police about it?

Helen wrote about it in her book when she was talking about her late husband JS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

The blog post she did about him being unwell I also found very telling. I'll have to look it up. She was talking about the thought of living with someone who was dying of an illness after previously losing her husband suddenly and IMO it sounded like she was saying she wouldn't do it. E.g she couldn't face losing someone to a slow and drawn out illness after her previous experience. When she had first gone missing I'd read that as she wanted to leave him because she wouldn't risk another (what she was beginning to consider worse) loss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting, so even if she didn't mean it that way, IS could have interpreted it the same way as you did.

 

[ColourPurple]

Helen wrote about it in her book when she was talking about her late husband JS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks. I wonder if IS informed police or whether somebody else did. Just wonder why he never mentioned it on the phonecall and if he ever did.

 

[snoopydog]

http://planetgrief.com/2016/02/27/five-years/

 

[michelle230]

Nick and Joe

Following his arrest in December, IS told his youngest son, Oliver, that two men, Nick and Joe, had repeatedly visited the home demanding paperwork and had assaulted him on one occasion. IS claimed one of the men had given him a phone and forced him to follow certain instructions.
So IS would have his sons, the court and us believe that these men had visited the home repeatedly, had assaulted him and he never contacted the police.

Oliver told the court, “When he was telling me about these people, I could see that he was not joking; I could see the fear. Purely by him telling me that, that was the road I can see he was going down.” Prosecutor Trimmer asked, “What road was that?” to which Oliver replied, “That they were linked to the taking of Helen.”

Oliver said his father made these claims for the first time when he had gone to visit him while he was being held in custody. Oliver said, “He just made me aware that there were these two guys, Nick and Joe. He said they came to the house on a couple of occasions when we were away. He said originally when they were coming they wanted to find out from Helen about some paperwork; apparently they came to find this paperwork. Helen claimed to know nothing about of it but they seemed to be fairly sure she would have known something of it. Knowing Dad had had an operation, on arrival at the front door they decided to punch him in the stomach.”
By not contacting the police, if they were responsible for Helen's death, IS would have to take complete responsibility for her death. He knew the men were violent and also knew that they wanted something from Helen. Who knew what violence these men were capable of?

Oliver said that one of the men was said to have tattoos, while the other one was bald. “He let me know that they had given him a phone and they were instructing him to do things via the phone”. He said his father had never mentioned their existence prior to his arrest. Oliver drew conclusions about their involvement in Helen’s disappearance due to the way his father was behaving. He said, “I concluded they were involved in taking Helen because of the way he was telling me – there was fear in his face, he was not just joking about this.”
These were obviously men capable of violence and IS was more than happy to allow them into his home thereby putting Helen, his sons, if they were at home, and anyone else who may have been there at the time in danger. I can’t wait to hear what IS says these instructions via the phone were.

Isn’t it fascinating that the elder brother, Jamie, told the court that his father had never told him about the two men.

This is all grist for the mill for the Prosecution. If IS elects not to testify, the jurors will be instructed that this is hearsay and must be totally rejected. IS thinks he's “making the bullets” and having Oliver fire them, but in reality he’s arming the Prosecution with cannon balls. If he does take the stand, he’ll be crucified.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...l-told-fiance-pushed-for-sale-of-her-property

Listening to O giving evidence was painful. When asked for more detail/more depth to the "Nick/Joe story (i.e. the conversations that IS and O had about this "crucially important situation" in prison during his weekly visits), poor O kind of stumbled and didn`t seem to know what to say. He then answered by saying that that was all they had discussed because "time was limited to an hour each visit and they had other things to talk about".

 

[DollyDiamond]

As I've discussed with another member, I think his murder plan was first hatched in 2015, triggered by the power of attorney plus Helen's generous amendment to her will which meant he did not have to marry her to get his hands on her money if she died. Drugging her for months will have hardened him to murdering her - it put her death at the forefront of his mind every day that he administered those sleeping pills. Yes I think his illness also spurred him into action - go for it, life is short (it certainly was for poor Helen).

The ideal cause of death would have been an 'accident' and I've no doubt he was hoping she would fall asleep at the wheel. But that was too unreliable and as time went on he knew he would have to act to bring about her death. I am still baffled as to why he chose that particular day and, crucially, why he made no attempt to fake an accident or suicide. Dumping her - and Boris - in a cesspit in the family home made it an obvious case of foul play, with him the most likely/only suspect. That's why I honestly don't think he is terribly bright!

I have to say I'm not convinced thoughts of his sons' future inheritance were a big driving factor in the murder - in my view, IS thinks of no one but himself and his own greedy desires. He certainly never gave a thought to the shame he would bring on his son's with this vile, premeditated murder - psychopaths generally are not known for their concern or empathy for others.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Listening to O giving evidence was painful. When asked for more detail/more depth to the "Nick/Joe story (i.e. the conversations that IS and O had about this "crucially important situation" in prison during his weekly visits), poor O kind of stumbled and didn`t seem to know what to say. He then answered by saying that that was all they had discussed because "time was limited to an hour each visit and they had other things to talk about".

Yes, it's incredibly sad and distasteful that this blameless young man finds himself standing in a court of law, duty bound to repeat a stream of ludicrous BS fed to him by his evil father in a desperate, last ditch attempt to swerve a murder conviction. IS has left the most appalling legacy of shame for those two sons.

 

[snoopydog]

Also strangely the post I had thought was her saying she couldn't bear to lose someone to illness was her last. Having read it again now I note she doesn't say anywhere she doesn't want to go through with that. I was reading between the lines at the time because of her going missing. Personally though after what I've gone through I would avoid a man with illness for the exact reasons she wrote about. She maybe hadn't really considered it until IS became seriously ill and started pondering whether she could go through it again. From all accounts IS isn't exactly the picture of health.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[michelle230]

"Does he look at pictures of the garden where he dragged her dead body, see the swimming pool and swanky conservatory and imagine the luxurious retirement they could have enjoyed together if he hadn't carried out his plan for her destruction? Does he wish his sons and elderly parents still saw him as a wonderful dad and only child, rather than a soon to be convicted murderer of a woman and her dog for financial gain? He will never face the fact he is evil but I can't help but wonder, in his current, desperate predicament - DOES HE EVER WISH HE HADN'T BEEN SO DAMNED GREEDY?"

To be honest, I think the only thing he wishes is that he had got away with it.

 

[michelle230]

Personally I think his illness and time in intensive care may have made him realise that if he died first not only would he never had had full control of all Helen's cash but his sons would lose their home and only inherit his share of the main house. If Helen died first he would have the main house plus extras and he could also pass everything on to his sons in the event of his death.

I don`t think what would or wouldn`t be passed on to his sons was ever a consideration on his part. I believe it was only ever about himself. Him, and him only.

 

[Cherwell]

The ideal cause of death would have been an 'accident' and I've no doubt he was hoping she would fall asleep at the wheel. But that was too unreliable and as time went on he knew he would have to act to bring about her death. I am still baffled as to why he chose that particular day and, crucially, why he made no attempt to fake an accident or suicide. Dumping her - and Boris - in a cesspit in the family home made it an obvious case of foul play, with him the most likely/only suspect. That's why I honestly don't think he is terribly bright!

It was only going to be obvious if she was found, and I think he felt confident that she wouldn't be. On his own premises, where he was in control of whoever came on to the property. Someone said earlier that it would have been worse for him if he'd disposed of the body elsewhere, never knowing if it would be discovered by somebody's dog.

 

[DollyDiamond]

It was only going to be obvious if she was found, and I think he felt confident that she wouldn't be. On his own premises, where he was in control of whoever came on to the property. Someone said earlier that it would have been worse for him if he'd disposed of the body elsewhere, never knowing if it would be discovered by somebody's dog.[/QUOTE

Thanks I hadn't thought of it that way. So hiding the bodies within his home made him feel he was in control of them, and able to protect them from discovery. Rather naive of him to believe that, after enough time had elapsed and there was no still sign of Helen, the police wouldn't turn his house and garage upside down searching for her. They only had to lift the cesspit lid after all - and there she was. His apparent faith that Helen and Boris would never be discovered, sooner or later, will always baffle me.

 

[Alyce]

"Does he look at pictures of the garden where he dragged her dead body, see the swimming pool and swanky conservatory and imagine the luxurious retirement they could have enjoyed together if he hadn't carried out his plan for her destruction? Does he wish his sons and elderly parents still saw him as a wonderful dad and only child, rather than a soon to be convicted murderer of a woman and her dog for financial gain? He will never face the fact he is evil but I can't help but wonder, in his current, desperate predicament - DOES HE EVER WISH HE HADN'T BEEN SO DAMNED GREEDY?"

To be honest, I think the only thing he wishes is that he had got away with it.

My thought exactly Michelle.
Everything I have learnt about this person points me in one direction only - OLLI indeed was his motto, but it only applied to himself.
His only regrets, irritations even, will be why he didn't cover this, why he didn't think of that.

One of the things he worked hardest to do - as far as I can see - was to make sure he did not socialise with Helen's friends and family. They didn't really know him, so he was able to keep his true intentions hidden.
But what he thought was a smart move on his part, has come back to bite him big time.
Just as they didn't know him - so also, he didn't know them.
So he had no idea what wonderful family and friends Helen had, people who would not simply go along with a
Helen's gone away for a while story.

 

[Alyce]

It was only going to be obvious if she was found, and I think he felt confident that she wouldn't be. On his own premises, where he was in control of whoever came on to the property. Someone said earlier that it would have been worse for him if he'd disposed of the body elsewhere, never knowing if it would be discovered by somebody's dog.

Yes, I remember thinking that if he had put her in a field, or lake or wherever, he would always have that niggle in his mind that, one day, a man and his dog would find a body.

Plus , I look upon him as a passive killer, dictated in some part by his health and poor level of fitness.
Taking Helen elsewhere,having to dig a grave or travel a distance on foot to reach remote woodland or find a convenient lake or river...all too much effort.
Safe and secure on his property, I think he had no worries at all, expecting that Helen would decompose over time.
His troubles would literally all be washed away.

I daresay the annual drainage job would have been put off for a while and again, as he's not the smartest, perhaps he didn't realise that there might have been some evidence left, even after a few years, when the drainage could not be postponed any longer.

 

[JudgeJudi]

L2L

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...th-Africa-prison-Reeva-Steenkamp-family-photo

Yes, Mr Fossil and I had a blog.

 

[Squamous]

I too don't believe that an inheritance for his sons would have come into his motive. Helen was clearly a kind and generous person and if O & J had been orphaned I think she would have provided for them well. They are both working graduates so also presumably self-sufficient day to day and I'm sure Helen would have helped them out with a house deposit or similar.

 

[cottonweaver]

Listening to O giving evidence was painful. When asked for more detail/more depth to the "Nick/Joe story (i.e. the conversations that IS and O had about this "crucially important situation" in prison during his weekly visits), poor O kind of stumbled and didn`t seem to know what to say. He then answered by saying that that was all they had discussed because "time was limited to an hour each visit and they had other things to talk about".

So you were there that day Michelle - thanks for this post - was wondering why he was so vague in his testimony on this crucial matter.
So the existence of N&J was of low priority in Dec 2016 - anyone would think that IS's team & family would now have sprung into action, working with P.I.s to track down the real suspects Nick & Joe and thereby prove that Dad was innocent and had been much maligned.........

 

[Tortoise]

Something new has emerged from some chats I've been having with Alyce.

If you look at both sons' evidence, they say they were told by IS on Tuesday evening, that Helen had left a note and gone to Broadstairs. Neither of them say anything about him telling them Helen had (physically) left on Monday.

I think that's quite significant and it points to him inventing the note and the Broadstairs scenario on Tuesday.

Looking at OS' evidence, we know he was at home on the Monday evening before 5:30, when IS left to go to Cambridge for Bowls. OS didn't need to leave for cadets until 6:30. Yet he said "It was normal. Everything was normal. I didn't see Helen or the dog."

Now to my mind, that is far from normal. Being in the house, at a time when perhaps normally Helen might be cooking supper, being out with Boris, for over an hour. She's not gone in her Jeep, so she must have gone walking with Boris for an hour or more at that time. Isn't that a very long walk for a very little dog? What is also strange, to my mind, is that OS was not surprised that IS was driving to Cambridge, and wouldn't have asked him if Helen was also going with him, or if she was driving him. Jamie was surprised that IS made the journey.

OS was not asked if he cooked for himself or if he would normally have expected Helen to have cooked, or what normal was.

To my mind it is strange that both sons noticed Helen and Boris' absence on Monday, but neither said a word about it with IS.

Jamie got back from bowls to an empty house at around 9pm, I think probably slightly before 9pm. IS had left bowls at the same time and was seen on CCTV at the Chinese restaurant at 8:49pm. Presumably he then had to wait for the order to be made up and wouldn't have got home with the food until after 9:15 or so. Yet Jamie said "when I got home I only saw my dad".

I'm not sure we have heard the whole truth. Sorry if it upsets a few people, but I think we should be able to discuss the evidence without having to hide these things for fear of upsetting anyone. If anyone has a valid reason for me not putting this up on the board that I haven't considered, I shall reconsider and ask a mod to remove it if so.

I think possibly there were conversations about where Helen was on the Monday. And IS gave a different story because he hadn't thought about the story of the note yet, like 'she's out walking the dog' or 'I don't know where she's gone', or 'she's gone to bed because she's been having sleep problems recently'. I think they might be protecting their dad by saying there was no conversation about Helen on Monday, and that he implied to them (on Tuesday) that Helen had left (and left a note) on the Tuesday. I think IS had a story of Helen vanishing while out with Boris, but then changed that to Broadstairs because he suddenly got very nervous that police would concentrate on the house. It's perhaps one thing planning on using the perfect place to hide a body and quite another, after you've done it, and start to get paranoid about being caught.

Another piece of evidence that supports his change of story is him telling the solicitor that Helen was unwell. He could very easily have said she's gone away for a short break.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12452783