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

[wolfcub]

Absolutely! He has committed a huge crime that will - please God - put him away for the rest of his life. But intellectually, he is no master criminal! His biggest downfall was the arrogance of believing he was cleverer than the police. This makes me think he must have previously got away with something major, and it gave him the feeling he was invincible.

This sounds plausible to me - as I mentioned on my earlier post, I believe he felt wrong-footed by the police: he was so detached with reality as to think that Helen would become 'just another missing person' in spite of the trail of suspicious pointers in his direction... and as most of the posters here concur, you don't suddenly become a monster in middle age, he must have done stuff before which made him cocky about his ability to get away with it - he sure lost his cool with the police: it was not part of his plan or what he anticipated...

 

[Lit Up]

Maybe they had a joint savings and a joint current a/c? I dunno. I hope Lit Up is in court joining the dots for us!

I'm in court but financially illiterate

 

[DollyDiamond]

From what we have heard so far the flat has not been mentioned, just the Royston and Broadstairs houses. Have I missed something?

Apologies, I didn't mean to confuse matters - I was referring to earlier prosecution evidence (a while ago, not today), when they discussed the repeated visits IS made to the solicitor handling the sale of Helen's flat up north (after she disappeared), and he kept badgering them about his POA and asking why they couldn't progress the flat sale on that basis. The solicitor told him POA didn't apply because there was no proof Helen was alive. This clearly hadn't occurred to IS! No wonder the solicitor said in his evidence that he didn't seem at all happy, was frustrated and kept shrugging his shoulders, seems he mistakenly believed his POA was the magic key that would give him free access to all her financial matters while she was 'missing'.

 

[pinklilies]

IMHO anything relating to HB's will does not come into action until after her death.

Initially she was reported MISSING. In that case the POA is far more important than the will, as it offers IS ample opportunities to deal with her assets.

You're right, the POA was crucial, the will a secondary consideration. I think many of us struggle to believe IS honestly thought Helen's body would never be found, but all the evidence points to that being his hope and belief. Hell, he even took a 2 week holiday abroad knowing it was there in the marital home! In any of these situations, the missing/deceased woman's partner is ALWAYS the prime suspect - was IS unaware of this? He doesn't sound at all bright to me, quite the opposite. But I agree with other posters, though he clearly had a long term plan to kill her, the execution of it on April 11th was bungled which suggests something forced his hand.

Often, crims tend to speak parts of the truth. They think it makes their story more believable/credible if they throw in a little bit of the truth.
He had said himself Helen wasn't happy that they had now 'lost' three wedding venues and on another occasion he'd said she was becoming concerned he didn't want to marry her. I wouldn't be at all surprised if HE had somehow sent the emails with the news that the venues weren't available. Maybe on the third 'lost' venue, maybe helen contacted that venue, with questions. I know it might seem minor but I think she sussed on that Monday morning that he didn't want to marry her and just maybe confronted him about it. I think it could be something as simple as that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snoopydog]

Hold on. This is a man who wasn't in the best of health and just had a stint in high dependency. Why on earth would he be playing a long game?

I think his head is up his arse and that's why we can't work out what he was doing. He didn't even know what he was doing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pinklilies]

From what we have heard so far the flat has not been mentioned, just the Royston and Broadstairs houses. Have I missed something?

I think the flat was due to be sold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

The thing is if you're going to stage a disappearance, it makes no difference if you do it before or after marriage. Doing it earlier gets the 7 year ball rolling, and you avoid losing money on a wedding. And maybe a new conservatory you don't really want.

Looking at it from a psychopath's point of view, of course.

 

[Interested Bystander]

My head is spinning :spinner: :spinner: :spinner:

What I want to stress is that he did not want her found. Meaning that we have to look for the ways in which he would allegedly benefit from the situation while she was missing. IMHO he was keen on selling the other house, so he must have had a plan of sorts. We haven't heard from the person who wanted to buy that house, have we? They would have wanted the sale to go through, I suppose.

The will and everything that surrounds it would not come into focus until much later, perhaps even 7 years.

Seven years to inherit but I think if he has POA (unsure about the POA bit) there is a law waiting to be approved by Parliament allowing "family" to have access to finances in order that their lifestyle is not ruined by a missing partner. However, I do wonder whether partner means by marriage only. I think it is called the Guardianship Law.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/01/what-happens-finances-missing-legistaltion-families

 

[Squamous]

I'm in court but financially illiterate

Was it as confusing in person as it is via reporting?!

 

[icemaiden65]

This sounds plausible to me - as I mentioned on my earlier post, I believe he felt wrong-footed by the police: he was so detached with reality as to think that Helen would become 'just another missing person' in spite of the trail of suspicious pointers in his direction... and as most of the posters here concur, you don't suddenly become a monster in middle age, he must have done stuff before which made him cocky about his ability to get away with it - he sure lost his cool with the police: it was not part of his plan or what he anticipated...

Yup, I think it was yesterday I wrote on here about the possibility of some sort of 'previous event'.

 

[pinklilies]

The thing is if you're going to stage a disappearance, it makes no difference if you do it before or after marriage. Doing it earlier gets the 7 year ball rolling, and you avoid losing money on a wedding. And maybe a new conservatory you don't really want.

Looking at it from a psychopath's point of view, of course.

Ah you see, I think it's him that wanted the new conservatory, he intended staying there a long time. I think helen wasn't too happy about it. Jmo of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[icemaiden65]

Hold on. This is a man who wasn't in the best of health and just had a stint in high dependency. Why on earth would he be playing a long game?

I think his head is up his arse and that's why we can't work out what he was doing. He didn't even know what he was doing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh I needed a good chuckle!

:loveyou:

 

[Tortoise]

Ah you see, I think it's him that wanted the new conservatory, he intended staying there a long time. I think helen wasn't too happy about it. Jmo of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't really know. He said she was stressed about it but he was looking for excuses and could have invented that. Maybe he envisioned the green stuff floating away before his very eyes.

 

[Legally Bland]

Apologies, I didn't mean to confuse matters - I was referring to earlier prosecution evidence (a while ago, not today), when they discussed the repeated visits IS made to the solicitor handling the sale of Helen's flat up north (after she disappeared), and he kept badgering them about his POA and asking why they couldn't progress the flat sale on that basis. The solicitor told him POA didn't apply because there was no proof Helen was alive. This clearly hadn't occurred to IS! No wonder the solicitor said in his evidence that he didn't seem at all happy, was frustrated and kept shrugging his shoulders, seems he mistakenly believed his POA was the magic key that would give him free access to all her financial matters while she was 'missing'.

Just for clarity. Evidence from solicitor Timothy Penn.
__________

“I explained to him obviously, with the question mark over where Helen was, there was a question mark over the power of attorney.”


Stewart allegedly told the solicitor he was looking into getting his powers of attorney properly registered.


The court heard that this was required for his powers over Ms Bailey’s affairs to become active - and only stood if she was alive.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/murder-accused-tried-sell-authors-12462872

 

[snoopydog]

We don't really know. He said she was stressed about it but he was looking for excuses and could have invented that. Maybe he envisioned the green stuff floating away before his very eyes.

Or maybe he was worried any new build so close to the cess pit would have displaced Helen and Boris [emoji51]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]14:14[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Court is back in session[/h]Proceedings have now resumed in court. The judge briefly deals with a couple of questions from the jury concerning Helen Bailey’s assets. He confirms that Stewart would have received the £235,000 pension fund and £1.2million life insurance pay out, separate to the conditions of her will.

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

[/FONT]

 

[Tortoise]

They were cogitating over lunch

 

[Squamous]

I can do updates til 3...

Court is back in session

Proceedings have now resumed in court. The judge briefly deals with a couple of questions from the jury concerning Helen Bailey’s assets. He confirms that Stewart would have received the £235,000 pension fund and £1.2million life insurance pay out, separate to the conditions of her will.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Hold on. This is a man who wasn't in the best of health and just had a stint in high dependency. Why on earth would he be playing a long game?

I think his head is up his arse and that's why we can't work out what he was doing. He didn't even know what he was doing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bang on! We are trying to understand the thinking of a psycopath of average/below average intellect and thankfully, that's difficult for us. I think what it boils down to is he didn't love Helen but he was head over heels in love with her money. All this evidence about the finances makes me feel just as sick as the very distressing evidence about her and Boris in the cess pit. Because IS was well off, even without Helen's money. He didn't need to work, was mortgage free, with an income of nearly £2k a month and a six figure sum in the bank. To kill her and Boris for money was staggering, unfathomable, revolting GREED.

 

[Tortoise]

I shouldn't be here, sorry. I've got to go out if someone will kindly do the honours after this.

[FONT=&quot]14:16[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Next witness: Anthony Hurley, financial adviser and friend of Ms Bailey[/h]Prosecution calls the next witness - Anthony Hurley, he is the chairman of financial advisory firm Hurley Partners Ltd. He knew Ms Bailey through her first husband, John Sinfield. He supported her following Mr Sinfield’s death.

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

[/FONT]