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

[michelle230]

No. In fact quite a big deal was made of the fact that the CCTV system was not very good e.g. it was a "still" camera and only came into action when there was movement and the cameras around the site were not co-ordinated timewise. Think they talked about having to update them, but no - it wasn`t mentioned.

Movement - I think car/lorry etc movement. At one stage the only reason IS showed up is because a car drove by triggering the camera

 

[Tortoise]

That makes it even more mysterious.

 

[icemaiden65]

Movement - I think car/lorry etc movement. At one stage the only reason IS showed up is because a car drove by triggering the camera

Thanks Michelle - but drat, even a hedgehog trotting into range sets off the back garden cameras here. And they also save a couple of seconds before the movement was detected and the same after. These are small in size domestic property cameras. I just hope the tip/dump will do a serious review as a result of this. I bet more than one person will have disposed of 'evidence' at their local tip/dump! A still camera only triggered by a large item moving such as a vehicle is as much use as a chocolate fireguard, sigh.

 

[Cherwell]

Less, certainly, but I think he had always planned on using the cesspit and it being a mystery disappearance. I just think the location of the disappearance was what he wanted to change, but even that didn't wash with police because they still kept searching the house! I think they suspected very early on but had no physical evidence. The call to 101 itself would have had alarm bells ringing with him expressing no worry, and reporting it because others were worried. That's where he played it wrong IMO, because he wanted to give the impression he believed she was choosing to be absent but at the same time others knew it was out of character. The man who lived with her had not predicted this was so out of character.

If he had planned on using Broadstairs it always bothered me that he hadn't been down there and planted some evidence to make it look like she'd arrived and then vanished. But with it being a last minute version that explains it. Also, if she had vanished on the Monday, while out with Boris, it would not be believable that he hadn't reported it the same day. So his nerves got in the way of reporting her absence when he should have done.

The Broadstairs version was never going to wash because no cars were missing, and she would almost certainly have been traced if she had used public transport or a taxi. The only feasible alternative would have been if a third party was involved to drive her there. I'm sure he would ideally have wanted to get her car to Broadstairs, but that would have been difficult and risky.

And with other people saying it was out of character, and the delay in reporting, he might have been more convincing if he'd admitted they'd had a row. It wouldn't have changed anything but it would have made his call initially more plausible.

Really his best bet would have been to report her missing the same night, saying she hadn't returned from her walk. He was always going to be the first suspect though.

 

[cottonweaver]

[/B]Ahh...if only I could!!

This is what I meant when I said in a couple of posts that I didn`t understand why the prosecutor`s questioning had been so basic and gentle. The obvious further delving into the Joe/Nick story is one example - all the points raised above and more - and also another example is Helen`s apparent incident with her car that made her come home and say she wasn`t going to drive again! That was never asked to be expanded upon.
I can only think that this is a most delicate situation and had to be handled with great sensitivity. Bear in mind that as someone has already said, if IS does not take the stand then the evidence of Nick/Joe is worthless anyway. If IS does take the stand, I assume his fable will be torn to shreds quicker than a paper bag.
I understand the "thinking outside the box" regarding J and O. All I can confirm is what the previous poster said regarding the warmth between J and O and Helen`s brother and partner (and support). This was my strong observation too. Most definitely.
Hopefully none of us have ever been faced with such a terrible dilemma (J and O dilemma). What I personally have learnt, through an experience with a friend`s previous con artist boyfriend (who also ended up in prison),...I had known this guy for two years as my friend`s b/f and saw him often. When the truth came to light, the time it took for me to absorb the fact that he wasn`t what I thought, and that he was actually this awful other person...it took a long, long time for my emotions and thoughts to shift and to think of him as the person he really was, rather than the person he presented as. It was a long, emotional process as what we know factually takes much longer to internalise emotionally.
Can you imagine therefore how it is for J and O?

BIB Very salient points I agree. Ditto not asking mum to elaborate on why she was "uneasy about the HB IS relationship" when HB started to become more unwell. ( ie. Sparing further anguish of a 90 yr old grieving mum)

yes. as far as prosecution is concerned it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. They have their culprit and their major charges on the table- IS. And they have every confidence in a conviction.

IMO He is a manipulator and the boys too have been manipulated. They have been placed in a very difficult position by a devious man. Add to this the unanswerable question of whether this man does have APD or some kind of long-standing sociopathy whereby they may have been victims of manipulation for decades.
Although they are adults, they arrive with every sympathy, because they lost their mother too before their father's heinous crime.

I am not in their shoes as they face the horrible task of testifying , BUT if I had been, at this particular point, I would've been been relieved to add ( re my OP) wtte: Dad told me about N& J and to be honest I thought he was off his head at that point, I didn't even take it seriously OR something like - this was a curveball that I hadn't expected and I stormed off, couldn't take any more, i just stopped listening......

"taking the court into your confidence" is a phrase all of us here are familiar with and it's really significant IMO.

I wouldn't have expected anything different from J.Bailey nor his partner who has ministry in London. Strength, dignity, privacy: forgiveness says a lot, about the giver IMO.

This case will be rehashed over and over, after the WS threads are closed, in MSM, on SM, in programmes,publications, real crime etc etc for some years to come. (Talented author, survivor of one huge life- tragedy finds love again, murdered in her prime, male "gold -digger", horrific means of disposal, pitiful tiny pet with her, a slow poisoning....... sadly men kill women they loved every day without making much of an impact on the press.) So there are implications here.

Maybe when dealing with a manipulator there comes a point where you have to say no more, cut loose? ( No I don't expect a priest to say that but for many victims I think that's relevant, however painful, to not remain a victim.)

 

[BatFace]

Cottonweaver, could you elaborate a little on the "taking the court into your confidence" thing- I'm not familiar with the phrase?

 

[michelle230]

Cottonweaver, could you elaborate a little on the "taking the court into your confidence" thing- I'm not familiar with the phrase?

Me neither!

 

[MillyM]

IS did say one of them had been "dealt with" already
Would be very interesting to know more about that

Said in one online report 'Joe' was the one who had been 'dealt with'. I too would like to know: HOW Joe was dealt with, by WHO, WHEN, and HOW IS came by this knowledge of him being dealt with.

 

[Florrie]

The choice of words that OS used in court was also interesting with regard to the Jo and Nick story.

He said "I could see the road he was going down" which I thought was a very odd choice of words for a youngster who believes his father is innocent.
I know when he was pushed on those words he clarified it as believing someone had taken Helen but I still think that choice of words was odd.

It might be that OS believes his father to be guilty deep down but cannot face that.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[michelle230]

Said in one online report 'Joe' was the one who had been 'dealt with'. I too would like to know: HOW Joe was dealt with, by WHO, WHEN, and HOW IS came by this knowledge of him being dealt with.

No time to discuss that :notgood: (see my earlier post). We`re all waiting with baited breath for IS to elaborate on that one!

 

[Cherwell]

The choice of words that OS used in court was also interesting with regard to the Jo and Nick story.

He said "I could see the road he was going down" which I thought was a very odd choice of words for a youngster who believes his father is innocent.
I know when he was pushed on those words he clarified it as believing someone had taken Helen but I still think that choice of words was odd.

It might be that OS believes his father to be guilty deep down but cannot face that.

Yes, it suggests to me "So that's the story he's come up with".

 

[Squamous]

I don't think we have any real idea if we think OS and JS believe their father to be innocent at this stage, do we? I can imagine they did before the body was found, because no-one would want to believe that about their parent, but I don't think we've got any evidence for their thinking really. OS said he was sure his dad was serious about Joe and Nick I think but said nothing about whether he himself thought they had anything to do with the price of fish.

 

[Cherwell]

No time to discuss that :notgood: (see my earlier post). We`re all waiting with baited breath for IS to elaborate on that one!

So was OS actually asked for more about that in court?

 

[MillyM]

TX for this. I was idly wondering why she might need capital now.
it could be as michele has said - hassle from tenants etc. and maybe she had some kind of high return investment option that made it worthwhile to do so.


In this case due to the overarching motive - follow the money.
so hope we will hear from an accountant? wondering if IS had convinced her to sell it with some ruse.

ETA - oops cross post with Dolly, thinking along the same lines.

ETA2 - presume IS contributed towards university fees? Can't remember the year of graduation now, My focus is on IS's outgoings not the son in this instance.

Are you referring to IS's Som JS's university fees? The son graduated last summer. I was wondering how son managed during his uni period financially, - though believe he had work placements during break peroids - and how IS would have been able to contribute much as unemployed and presumably just living on any savings, benefits etc.

 

[michelle230]

The choice of words that OS used in court was also interesting with regard to the Jo and Nick story.

He said "I could see the road he was going down" which I thought was a very odd choice of words for a youngster who believes his father is innocent.
I know when he was pushed on those words he clarified it as believing someone had taken Helen but I still think that choice of words was odd.

It might be that OS believes his father to be guilty deep down but cannot face that.

A carefully chosen vague answer - trying to insinuate without putting anything into actual words which would lead to more complexities.

 

[pinklilies]

I think he may have drowned Boris. In a pillowcase possibly, and either a bath or swimming pool.
I don't think the p.m. exam by the vet would have shown this after so long in the cess pit.

[emoji31] I can't bear to see or hear of any cruelty to innocent animals so I try not to think too long about little Boris. That's not to say I find it easy about Helen, it's deplorable and beyond words but I think he just threw Boris, alive, in that pit. If he could put Helen, the woman who loved him in, he's no problem throwing an animal in. Dead or alive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

I would hate to be in their shoes. There can't be much that is worse than having your trust in a parent shattered.

 

[michelle230]

So was OS actually asked for more about that in court?

I believe he was asked what he thought his father meant when he said he had "been dealt with" and that`s when he said they didn`t discuss it as no time and other things to talk about...

 

[MillyM]

Thanks for link to Mirror articles. That photo of IS - UGH! His eyes are as dead and black as his soul.

If you can find the photo link - which I can't give here - of him from time of previous marriage, even more 'dead and black' I thought. Though of course some people do just take rubbish pix, admittedly.

 

[michelle230]

I would hate to be in their shoes. There can't be much that is worse than having your trust in a parent shattered.

Agree Tortoise.