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

[cottonweaver]

I posted earlier that maybe HB did not know that IS had many accounts with cash in them, but maybe I've got that wrong

Previously Oliver said

Oliver said he was unaware of the couple being engaged, but said he was happy at the thought of them marrying. He said there weren’t any financial worries and the financial position of each of them was not a worry - in fact it was quite the opposite

.

The investigator confirms that the accounts he has managed to find for Stewart totalled around £162,000 in cash.
He also had a total monthly net income of £1,933.

 

[ZaZara]

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

This is interesting! There are calls for similar laws in other countries too.

I wonder if the "family-of-the-missing' law would apply to a fiancee too?

An IMAGINARY interview in The Guardian:

Royston, April 2019. Almost three years to the day, beloved author Helen Bailey disappeared with her Dachshund Boris from her home in Royston where she was living with her fiancee Ian Stewart and his two adult sons. She has not been heard of since. "At first, we all thought she needed time for herself," Ian Stewart tells."We were planning our wedding in September, she was selling an apartment. No one believed that she would not return within a few days." These days turned into weeks, and weeks became years.
"I found out the hard way," Stewart continues, "that I, as the fiancee of a missing person, have even less legal standing than a spouse in similar circumstances. The buyer wanted the sale of the apartment to go through. I hoped that I was able to do this through a POA. We both had lost our first partner, so we were aware that we needed to plan for euh... well, certain circumstances, and we thought we had done so. Turns out I did not have a POA for when she would have gone missing, only in case of ill health. Helen had been wanting to sell that apartment for a long time, her plans were clear, or so I thought, but nobody could tell me what to do." Fortunately, Stewart came into contact with the charity Missing Persons and blablabla.....

It occurred to me that IS is a person who does very little to achieve very much.
All he had to do was find a wealthy partner who, after all she had been through when her husband died unexpectedly, would never want to leave him destitute. Then, as a next step, he might profit from the work of charities like Missing Persons. His case would probably generate a lot of sympathy too. At no moment he appears greedy, only resigned and perhaps in ill health.
Yet he is moving quietly from a mere 2000 a month to a bank account with millions.

In business, this is called picking low hanging fruits.
The Chinese have a concept for it in Tao: Wu-Wei, doing by not-doing.

Keep your eyes on what you can easily obtain and simply wait until someone solves the mess for you.
You do not have to be very bright or energetic, as long as you understand this concept well.


https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/la...as-guardianship-legislation-moves-closer.html

Following today’s Ten Minute Rule Bill, Kevin Hollinrake MP, who is a supporter of the guardianship campaign, and of the Lawrence family will give a second reading of the Bill on February 3rd 2017.

 

[icemaiden65]

Yes that's possible. It was me who said it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Diane was a school secretary I think and they don't get paid huge amounts. Normally, similar to UK Civil Service, the best that IS could have had as a widower pension would be half of what would have been the monthly payment that Diane would have got at that point in time had she retired. Not a huge amount as I already said. Have also found that Diane's sister wrote on a social media site the actual cause of Diane's death as deemed by the coroner to be 'unexpected Epileptic fit'.

 

[Legally Bland]

I agree with icemaiden, I don't think the value of the widower's pension would have been enough to be a consideration, but it looks like it wouldn't have altered if IS had remarried due to a rule change in 1988. (Assuming I have the right pension scheme).

Do support staff have access to a pension scheme? Support staff in schools typically have access to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). This article relays information about automatic enrolment in the scheme and outlines the key features of the LGPS.

https://schoolleaders.thekeysupport...upport-staff-have-access-to-a-pension-scheme/

The LGPS website explains how the rules now apply:

If you are receiving a widow's, widower's or civil partner's pension it is payable to you for the rest of your life, unless your husband, wife or civil partner left the LGPS before 1 April 1998 and you remarry, enter into a new civil partnership or cohabit with someone.

If your husband or wife left the LGPS before 1 April 1998 and your pension has been suspended on your remarriage or co-habitation before 1 April 1998 your pension fund administratorcan decide whether to reinstate your pension if your remarriage or co-habitation comes to an end.

If your husband, wife or civil partner left the LGPS before 1 April 1998 and you remarry, cohabit or enter into a new civil partnership after 31 March 1998, your pension fund administrator can decide whether your pension continues or not.​

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07109/SN07109.pdf

 

[DollyDiamond]

I think they're trying to say why would he kill her for her money when he only had to wait a few months till September when he'd get everything without having to pay inheritance tax. They keep leaving out that the life insurance would have covered the inheritance tax so there was no financial advantage in waiting until they were married.

Exactly! The fact that Helen took out a special insurance policy to pay the inheritance tax surely blows that defence theory out of the water. The phrase clutching at straws springs to mind.

 

[DollyDiamond]

This is interesting! There are calls for similar laws in other countries too.

I wonder if the "family-of-the-missing' law would apply to a fiancee too?

An IMAGINARY interview in The Guardian:



It occurred to me that IS is a person who does very little to achieve very much.
All he had to do was find a wealthy partner who, after all she had been through when her husband died unexpectedly, would never want to leave him destitute. Then, as a next step, he might profit from the work of charities like Missing Persons. His case would probably generate a lot of sympathy too. At no moment he appears greedy, only resigned and perhaps in ill health.
Yet he is moving quietly from a mere 2000 a month to a bank account with millions.

In business, this is called picking low hanging fruits.
The Chinese have a concept for it in Tao: Wu-Wei, doing by not-doing.

Keep your eyes on what you can easily obtain and simply wait until someone solves the mess for you.
You do not have to be very bright or energetic, as long as you understand this concept well.


https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/la...as-guardianship-legislation-moves-closer.html

WOW! An incredibly interesting and intelligent post - thank you. I had never heard of the 'low hanging fruits' concept. I think it encapsulates this lazy but shockingly cunning murderer and thief. He is a kind of slow poison, he reminds me of the modus operandi of the komodo dragon which will attack prey much bigger than itself with a single bite. Rather than stay and fight to the death, it leaves - knowing the toxins in it's saliva will kill the unfortunate animal in due course. Later it returns to eat the result (komodo dragons are dreadful cannibals too). If Helen's body had remained undiscovered and he had got away with it, you can well imagine him playing the poor little victim very convincingly - asking the missing people charity, his MP etc for help in his dreadful unjust predicament over POA for his beloved, missing fiance (pass me a bucket).

Helen had no clue she was his victim until it was too late. I do wonder though, with her prioritising her will and the POA in his favour (no doubt due to him nagging her behind the scenes), if her loved ones had any concerns about his motives? They couldn't have known he would kill her but did they suspect he was a gold digger who would marry her for her money? One has to wonder what her brother John Bailey felt, when he found out he was no longer a beneficiary of her will and that suddenly IS was to cop for the lot?

 

[Moll]

I think they're trying to say why would he kill her for her money when he only had to wait a few months till September when he'd get everything without having to pay inheritance tax. They keep leaving out that the life insurance would have covered the inheritance tax so there was no financial advantage in waiting until they were married.

The BBC website also leaves this out:
However, Simon Russell Flint, defending Mr Stewart, pointed out that as Ms Bailey died before the couple married, Mr Stewart would have had to pay 40% of any money that he inherited over the amount of £325,000.
If she had died after they had married, he could have inherited everything inheritance tax-free, said Mr Flint.
That could have saved his (sic) about £1m in tax, the court was told.

 

[Cherwell]

One has to wonder what her brother John Bailey felt, when he found out he was no longer a beneficiary of her will and that suddenly IS was to cop for the lot?

It doesn't sound like that was the case.

"Mr Hurley said that he had no further meetings with Ms Bailey until a financial review meeting in July 2015 at which point it became clear that Ms Bailey had sought the ‘interim’ will and was still struggling to come to a decision about what various beneficiaries would receive.

He is asked what action he would have taken if called upon to execute her will. He says he would have used the earlier email summarising her wishes. He says: “In the absence of any other document… I would have fallen back on this document. I would have relied upon this to give me the guidance of how to distribute the funds."

She hadn't finally decided how much to leave to the other beneficiaries. Presumably these included her brother and her stepchildren, but there may have been bequests to friends and charities too.

 

[snoopydog]

Jeez something just came to me and I feel a bit sick. She was probably having conversations with IS about the amounts she would leave to others when she sorted her will out. Like couples do she'd have been asking him what he thought and so on meanwhile he's knowing he has to top her off before she changes anything out of his favour.... horrible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DollyDiamond]

It doesn't sound like that was the case.

"Mr Hurley said that he had no further meetings with Ms Bailey until a financial review meeting in July 2015 at which point it became clear that Ms Bailey had sought the ‘interim’ will and was still struggling to come to a decision about what various beneficiaries would receive.

He is asked what action he would have taken if called upon to execute her will. He says he would have used the earlier email summarising her wishes. He says: “In the absence of any other document… I would have fallen back on this document. I would have relied upon this to give me the guidance of how to distribute the funds."

She hadn't finally decided how much to leave to the other beneficiaries. Presumably these included her brother and her stepchildren, but there may have been bequests to friends and charities too.

Am I right in thinking as the will stood at the time of her murder everything went to IS? I realise she may have been planning various bequests to other people that she had not yet specified (and I agree with another poster, that would have worried IS and spurred him on to kill her before she actioned those plans) but the point I'm making is that the 2012 will divided her estate between her brother and her two stepchildren. Presumably John Bailey knew she had changed that in favour of IS? Or have I missed something?

 

[Moll]

Am I right in thinking as the will stood at the time of her murder everything went to IS? I realise she may have been planning various bequests to other people that she had not yet specified (and I agree with another poster, that would have worried IS and spurred him on to kill her before she actioned those plans) but the point I'm making is that the 2012 will divided her estate between her brother and her two stepchildren. Presumably John Bailey knew she had changed that in favour of IS? Or have I missed something?

I don't recall whether John Bailey knew about her draft will, but today:
[FONT=&amp]The court heard if Ms Bailey was to die unmarried then it was acknowledged that there would likely be an inheritance tax bill of £1.28million. Ms Bailey eventually took out a life insurance policy to cover this eventuality. At a meeting with will executor Tony Hurley, Ms Bailey asked for Stewart to be given her share of their main house, ownership of the second house in Broadstairs and a sum of money to ensure he lived a comfortable lifestyle.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]An email from Mr Hurley summarised Ms Bailey’s wishes as “you specifically wished to ensure that Ian had your share of the main house, the second home in Broadstairs and a capital sum that will ensure that he has a very comfortable lifestyle.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Ms King Jones says: “I personally took this to be a large step towards her wishes, that should anything happen to her it would have been a very considerable indication of what she wanted.'
(Cambridge News website)[/FONT]

 

[snoopydog]

Or maybe he thought that by having POA KNOWING she was never coming back he would have ALL the money from day one and no one else would get any because he'd have vanished somewhere by the time 7 years was up and she was legally pronounced dead.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Moll]

So it was never said that IS was to inherit everything, only that he would be a major beneficiary.

 

[cheeseman]

It might have been remarked before, but there do seem to be unfortunate similarities between IS and Malcolm Webster, another wicked psychopath who bumped off his wives for money. MW continues to protest his innocence to this day.

 

[snoopydog]

I think the defence were trying to mislead the jury as well into thinking that he'd get less unless they were married. They omitted the insurance policy when saying this... this should have been clarified strongly by the prosecution


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lit Up]

God forbid none of them get their hands on it now.

“She basically said to me: ‘If anything, god forbid happens to me, the one thing I want to make sure is that Ian and the boys have the security of this house.’ "

I assume that the Stewart sons will benefit from Ian's meagre savings and 470k odd equity in the Royston house, when he dies. If he feels guilty he might just gift all of that to his sons after the trial, given he can't spend anything himself; although maybe he's deluded and thinks he'll get out on appeal.

I wonder what will happen to the Royston house after HB's estate passes probate. The Stewart sons are presumably still living in the property. The house will still be partly owned by Ian Stewart, at least to the value of whatever money he stuck into it (£470,000?). John Bailey and the two adult Sinfield stepchildren are the beneficiaries from the first will HB made and I presume that given the laws on forefeiture, that her estate will be divided between the three of them, but that will be another complicated decision for a court to make.

 

[LozDa]

Hi all. Two points from me this evening

Firstly, with regards to his income, you can get long term accident and sickness protection. This is what I assumed was meant by benefits/income, but hadn't seen anyone mention it (apologies if it has been brought up). According to the link below:

Long term income protection insurance provides a means of protecting your earnings from the risk of both short term and long term sickness and injury. Policies can start accumulating benefit after just 4 weeks out of work and can protect your income right up to retirement.

https://www.drewberryinsurance.co.uk/income-protection-insurance/long-term-income-protection

Given that he clearly likes to harp on about his illnesses and elicit sympathy, it wouldn't surprise me if accident and illness cover was something he went into with open, greedy eyes......

Secondly, the defence is going down the line that the motive of financial gain before marriage is less than after, so it doesn't make sense that he killed her when he did, so that means the motive presented is weak...

BUT... this is dependent on the fact that he knew the complete ins and outs of the fact that he would not get charged income tax after marriage. Given that he knew there was a life insurance policy in place, specifically to cover the income tax, he might have assumed the income tax would have applied after marriage also. There's no reason for him not to think that unless he's researched it or Helen relayed that piece of information. But she may have just told him there was cover in place for any income tax. And as for researching it, how would he know TO research it? As far as he was concerned, everything was in place for him to inherit everything and all costs covered by insurance.

Yes, technically, he would have made more if he'd married her, but how do we know he knew that? They're asking experts in the financial field about IHT and the nuances of it, not Mr Intelligent over there. So, in my mind the motive is just as strong as previously thought.

It's like saying that the motive of someone robbing a car for money is defunct because five minutes later there would have been a case full of money inside it and they didn't wait.

How would they have known the case of money was going to be there?

 

[hunkerdown]

It might have been remarked before, but there do seem to be unfortunate similarities between IS and Malcolm Webster, another wicked psychopath who bumped off his wives for money. MW continues to protest his innocence to this day.

I have gone back and watched the ITV dramatization of 'The Widower'. The similarities are frightening and after checking, it was originally shown on ITV in 2014, so IS (along with the knowledge of the cesspit) could well have picked up some ideas...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lit Up]

Snipped

Lit Up - maybe you can confirm this, when you have time?
We have been told various things today, that the £2k monthly income related to his past company.
The BIB is very different.

I'm sorry but I wasn't there for the whole day today. I got the train when you guys told me the trial was on, and so I got there for the solicitor discussing the contents of HB's will.

 

[faybradshaw]

He won't have been getting anything like that in benefits alone. Likelihood is that he had a pension and other payments coming in on top. Even top rate PIP wouldn't give him that income per month.

I am leaning towards him killing Helen unplanned that day and everything he did afterwards was done in a panic. Still very telling that he chose to shove her body in the cesspit though. To me this speaks of him not only resenting


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

After today's disclosure of Helen's worth, its clear-cut to me that Helen discovered something sinister was going on, that morning or previous night and confronted IS and told him it was over. He acted accordingly...