GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #4

[cottonweaver]

Next witness: Vania Puebiosa, cleaner at 45 Baldock Road, Royston

Court hears she used to clean at the house before Helen and Stewart moved in. She normally worked there on a Wednesday. In 2014, her hours of work changed. Regarding, April 13, 2016, Ms Puebiosa said: “I got there a bit late about 11am. Mr Ian answered the door. He was normal, speaking normally.”
A text message is read out to the court that Stewart sent to Ms Puebiosa: “Hi this is Ian from Baldock Road. Are you coming today - ok if you are not coming Helen is away. That is why I am contacting you.”
Ms Puebiosa: “I asked if it was alright if I did the cleaning. He said it was alright.”

Ms Puebiosa: “He told me not to change the bedding because he had already done that. Mrs Helen’s clothing [was upstairs on wash basket] some of her clothes like t-shirt, trousers all on top of the basket.
“There was never any clothes on top of the basket. She would put it in the basket.
“There was bedding drying in the dining room. Clothes usually dried in the dryer.
“Mr Ian had made the bed. I don’t know whether it was freshly done but it had been done. “
Prosecution: “The light green bed spread was usually on the bed. Not there that day?”
Ms Puebiosa: “No - only the eiderdown.”
Mr Russell Flint, defending: “The text that was sent - was that the first time you had had contact with Mr Ian?”
Ms Puebiosa: “Yes, by text message it was.
Mr Russell Flint, defending: “There were no clothes from Mrs Helen to iron that day. Waste paper bin upstairs had not been emptied?”
Ms Puebiosa: “Yes. Mrs Helen always emptied the waste paper bin. I’ve never had to do that.”
Mr Russell Flint: “Do people often tidy up before you come to the house?
Ms Puebiosa says she wouldn’t know.
Mr Russell Flint, defending: “Had he just made the bed or changed the sheets?”
Ms Puebiosa: “I understood he had changed the bed.”
Mr Russell Flint, defending: “How good is your English?”
Ms Puebiosa: “I understand a little but he used to speak clearly for me. Helen used to do that as well.”
Mr Russell Flint, defending: “I think you noticed Helen had a number of t-shirts which were stripey?”
Ms Puebiosa: “I’ve ironed some of her striped t-shirts.”
Mr Russell Flint, defending: “Do you remember what colour those t-shirts were?”
Ms Puebiosa: “I remember there was one with a blue stripe. I can’t recall well if there was one with a red stripe as well.”

Judge: “You said the green bed spread usually on the bed was not there. Did you see it again?”
Ms Puebiosa: “No”.
Judge: “Did you carry on cleaning there?”
Ms Puebiosa: “Yes. I worked there until recently.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-jury-12538102

extra tweets :
Cleaner Vania Puebiosa says 13/4/16 Helen's clothing on top of basket. This "unusual" as HB "always organised"
Cleaner Vania Puebiosa tells court Helen always emptied waste paper bin but on 13/4 it needed to be emptied.

#helenbailey Cleaner tells court the green bedspread missing on 13/4 was never seen again

 

[Squamous]

I used to date a barrister and he claimed never to "believe" in his clients' guilt or innocence, the presumption is innocence and it's for a jury to decide, not him. I could never get my head around it personally, but I think he could only do his job in defence under this moral position.

People might not know this about UK law, but if a defendant is pleading not guilty, and at any point tells his defence team "actually I did it", his team either has to make him change his plea to guilt or they ALL have to stand down and new defence team appointed. They can't defend a not guilty plea that they know to be false.

Yes, I recently realised this. I also didn't know that the defence story has to entirely come from the accused rather than their legal representative advising on a good line to take.

 

[cottonweaver]

Next witness: GP Matthew Jarvis

“I’m a partner at Ashwell surgery. I’ve been a GP since 1996. I see patients every day. The last time I saw him [Stewart] was June, 18 2015 which was an assessment for hemorrhoids. In April 2016, Mr Stewart said he was having regular interviews with the police. He didn’t want a sedative like diazepam. Mirtazapine in mid-range dose was given. It is my practise to tell patients to take it at night.” “On April 21 he was prescribed beta blockers. He was a normal man and nothing about him gave me cause for concern.”
doctor is giving evidence: “I can see my first dealing with Ian Stewart was a request for a telephone conversation.

During this consultation Ian discussed with me his partner had gone missing.
“He asked if it was normal not to be able to remember anything when in shock. I said he should follow the prescription.
“Ian mentioned the police were due to meet him. My next interaction was May 18, 2016. Ian had called asking for a consultation. I called him back. He said he had been given medication. Would increased medication help him sleep?
“Ian stated he had no side effects while being on this medication so I decided to increase medication.
The last time in June 2016. I received a request for a telephone conversation. He said his sleep was still poor and he wanted to know if he could increase his medication. He referred to Helen as his partner and never went into anything further. I recall he did seem panicked but I put this down to police being there.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-jury-12538102

 

[neteditor]

IMHO you could not have said this better, DollyDiamond!
One of these threads is that Helen complained of being tired and falling asleep, making clear that she did not know the cause and wasn't self-medicating the Zopiclone.
IMHO the prosecution has a strategy that is at least partly based on exclusion: they may perhaps not be able to prove certain things, but they can prove that other things did not happen: the self-medication of Zopiclone, who would know about the pit, and a lot of unusual behaviour vs ususal behaviour. Plus that no one knew about the mythical Nick and Joe nor about financial disputes other than those mentioned (and Nick and Joe were not involved).

It is up to the defense to disentangle these strands. IMHO they will put discreet emphasis on IS' physical condition, but we have already dealt with that one here on WS and so will the prosecution

BBM: For me, that I think is the biggest clincher. Who else knew about the pit. There's no evidence presented so far that the sons knew anything about it. The other people who knew about it could neither access it without IS's knowledge nor had motive to kill Helen and dispose of her there. The pit and, yes, the zopiclone, seal the deal for me.

 

[cottonweaver]

....... trying to get yesterday's evidence on one page, in one place, for ease of future reference....

Next witness: Julie Phipps, team leader social worker
“He had been referred to us for anxiety. I didn’t initially think there was anything wrong and was initially dismissive because Helen had not been found. “We were met at the front by Ian and went through to the living room. Ian sat in a single arm chair. “I do recall Ian said the police had wanted to search the house again and he had refused.”“He also said he had a holiday booked. Should he cancel it or not?“He seemed dismissive of the idea she couldn’t survive without accessing her bank account. “He said she had plenty of cash.“He came across with no evidence of anxiety or depression. He gave no indication on an emotional level of distress about Helen being missing. There was just nothing at all.”


Next witness: Dr Alison Wenzerul, consultant psychiatrist

She was asked to assess Stewart on May 6. Stewart had made a self-referral.
“I was told this was a slightly unusual situation.“We saw Mr Stewart at the outpatient unit. He said that she [Helen] had disappeared and on the day she’d disappeared he had been due to get some dressings changed. She was in a very anxious state about driving a car. He said there was a message about needing some space and time. “He said there had been an occasion where police had discovered a body up in Scotland and had been in touch because they thought it could be Helen, but it wasn’t. He was very distressed about that.” Simon Russell Flint, defending: “You say he looked old, tired and distressed? Having police there questioning him and his family.”
Dr Wenzerul: “He clearly was very distressed.”

Next statement from Mike Anguera.

Court told he met Stewart during a work placement at Jubilee House during a mental health assessment.
“I recall Ian had called into the unit because he couldn’t sleep due to his partner being missing. On arrival, I could see there were police officers at the address and they were just leaving. He invited us into the house and we went to the lounge.” “He explained he was having sleepless nights due to his missing partner.
“He said she had wanted to go somewhere to be on her own. He said he had had so many different talks with the police and he was getting confused. “He talked about a book Helen had written. She told him not to read it because it was about her ex-partner. He read parts of it. Ian had lost his previous partner.!
“He also said he was taking sleeping tablets because he was having sleepless nights
“He went from concerned and anxious to being abrupt and cut off. When the police were there he changed his body language. He relaxed his shoulders. His body language was more at ease.”

Judge: “Agreed facts are wonderful.” (Court reporter does not explain which facts Judge Bright was alluding to here)
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-jury-12538102

extra tweets :
Social worker who visited Ian Stewart : he became abrupt when asked about Helen's phone. "He turned quite quickly
Court hears from mental health worker who said Ian Stewart showed "no stress or anxiety" re Helen being missing ( Phipps)

 

[cottonweaver]

quick links

On thread 4 we also have

Link to OS & JS evidence
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...yston-11-April-2016-4&p=13111429#post13111429

Link to financial, bequest,financial adviser's evidence
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...yston-11-April-2016-4&p=13111277#post13111277

 

[neteditor]

Yes, I recently realised this. I also didn't know that the defence story has to entirely come from the accused rather than their legal representative advising on a good line to take.

It's actually very instructive to spend a bit of time in court, to see how the reality differs enormously from what we see on TV and film. The drama level is generally very low, so of course scriptwriters and directors have to jazz it up to be "entertaining". The bad side is that you can never watch another dramatised court scene without being irritated by all the stuff they get wrong

I have seen some wonderfully entertaining moments in court. If you ever get a chance to watch Peter Joyce QC in action, grab it. He's absolutely magnificent!

 

[scandinavian girl]

Yes, as Legally Bland can confirm, I practiced strangling my 19 year old son for another case I'm on.

lol, in another case recently a few hubbies and someones boss was throwing lightbulbs in cars,

 

[Alyce]

I was due to be somewhere else this morning, which was postponed....so I whizzed on here to check updates, and aaahhh, no court.

Thank you so much for the updates from the court LitUp, they really do paint the picture. I know St Albans well and the court area and can understand exactly what you mean about the walk from the station. And at this time of year, the weather adds to the gloom.
There are ( or used to be ) nicer areas, if you are on the main street and around the old town section, but that would be of little interest to family and friends. I wish them strength to endure this process every day.

 

[Alyce]

Hi all. I've been lurking and appreciating the discussion for a while now (though it feels a bit weird to use the word "appreciating" in such a tragic context). Snoopydog (I think) has posted recently about IS's comments in the bereavement FB group. Is this off-limits for linking? I'd be interested to read the comments, but don't want to ask anyone to break the rules.

Hello and :welcome: CC

 

[Alyce]

Trial Week 2

10 points I still would like clarity on, mainly from JS's evidence.

1.
“My dad told me that on the Monday [April 11] Helen had come home saying she never wanted to drive again.

Point: When did IS tell him this?

we have not been told exactly when this info was given to JS. But, JS in his evidence states that there was absolutely no conversation about Helen during the week of April 11 - 15, so it must have been over a week before IS mentioned this fact

2.
“On a Monday I normally get up at 7.30am, and I did the same this Monday. We have an alarm at the house.

Point: At what time did he leave the house? Is the alarm normally switched on last thing at night or not? Was it on when he left that morning? Did he reactivate it if it was? Did he activate it even if it had been off? Did he just leave without any interference with the alarm either way?

He works locally, 5 minute drive at most, so dependent on start time, I would say he doesnt have to depart until at least 8.30am. Depends how the alarm system works, but I would imagine he didnt reactivate it, as he would know that Helen would be getting up shortly. In fact, being as Helen was on line from 8.16am that morning, it is likely she was up and about before JS departed, although he has not said this as fact.


3.
“When I got up I was going to work in Royston. After work I had a bowls match in Cambridge, and planned to go directly from work to Cambridge.

Point: What is his means of transport to work - car, bicycle, walking, public transport? What time did he leave Hartwell Lodge and what time did he arrive at work? He 'planned' to go straight from work to bowls. Did this plan go ahead or was there a change? What time did he leave work and by what means of transport did he arrive at the bowls in?

Best guess he drives to work and then drives on to bowls ( Cambridge - 25 minutes journey , give or take ) in the evening.
As you rightly point out, there is a lot of this is what I would have done, this is what I planned to do - I hope that was clarified in court, so that the court is sure that this is actually what he did do.
As for departure from work - JS evidence says that as he arrived at bowls, IS was just walking in ahead of him. We know that this was 6pm, which would mean a depart time from work of 5.30pm for JS. Again I hope this has been confirmed.


“I got through to the final of the competition, it was an important match.

“Dad and I had spoken over the weekend over whether he was coming, and he wasn’t sure whether he was going to come or not.

4.
“I got to the bowls club and he was just walking in in front of me, I was surprised to see him there but I was happy.

Point: Presumably father had travelled separately in his own car?


5.
“In the game I lost and was disappointed. Coming back from Cambridge, I went straight home and dad said he would get me a Chinese to cheer me up.

Point: So father and son leave the bowls separately? If son had arrived by public transport or even possibly bicycle, why did he not travel home with his father? Did both leave the bowls at the same time?

Both travelled in cars. JS again does not tell us what time he left bowls, although we have to assume the competition was over by 8pm or just after as IS is seen on CCTV at the Chinese takeaway by 8.49pm., so must have departed Cambridge by 8.15pm latest.
JS evidence says he got home between 9 and 10pm, which I find rather odd. IS would have been home by 9.10pm ish, with the take away. Cant imagine JS then didnt turn up until nearly one hour later to eat with IS. Would be interesting to know if JS actually got home first, which would seem likely, but does not want to mention this, because of course there would be no Boris to greet him at the door.

6.
“There’s one we normally use on the market hill in Royston. I saw him next at home.”

Point: So if they left bowls separately, with son going straight home and father stopping for the takeaway, was this an error reported in Cambridge News? »» **The Lotus House restaurant in Royston, where Ian Stewart took his son Jamie on the day of Helen Bailey's alleged murder** ««

I think that is an error. they didnt go to eat, IS went to get a takeaway.

Point: If he saw his father next at home, when he arrived home was his father already there? If he wasn't, did JS find the house in darkness when he arrived or lights on? Was the alarm activated or off?

Quite - see my comment above - this is what I think may have happened. We dont know about the alarm ( and I wish we did ). OS would be the one to tell us about that, as he would have been the last to leave the house at 6.30pm to go to cadets. did he set the alarm ? he doesnt seem to have been asked that question.

7.
“I got home between 9-10pm. I only had chance to speak to him for five minutes after the bowls match, nothing was said about Helen at that point.

Point: What time did he leave the bowls and if he went straight home, how long would the journey normally be expected to take?

it is less than 30 mins - you can do it in 20-25 dependent on traffic. As I said above, I cant believe he didnt turn up until 10pm, when he knew IS would have been back home with the takeaway by 9.10pm if not earlier.

8.
“When I got home I only saw my dad."

Point: Was his father already there? If so, and if both had been travelling in cars, left at roughly the same time but father had to make detour for the takeaway, how did father still manage to be home first?

Indeed

9.
The next footage is of Royston Household Waste Site on April 11, 2016, where Stewart can allegedly be seen at the site.

Point: Was this clearly and positively identified as IS, or just going by car and a vaguely similar male figure?

10.
The next footage is the same waste site on April 13, showing Stewart’s BMW car coming back to the same site.

Point: Again, was this clearly and positively identified as IS as driver?


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

Milly, I have added my comments on to yours,in bold.

 

[Alyce]

So far the Prosecution seems to be very low key...they are letting the evidence speak for itself. However, having seen that IS is planning to take the stand I should think they are rubbing their hands together with glee. Get him up in the stand and give him enough rope to hang himself....which he will do.
Looking forward to the cross examination as I think they will crucify him.

I am longing to hear about Joe and Nick.
Also looking forward to seeing how much he plays the victim on the stand and what techniques he uses to try and manipulate the jury.

I think the jury are onto him already though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Like everyone else, I will be most interested to see what he says.

IMO he couldnt win either way.
Declaring himself not guilty of all charges, but not willing to put up any defence to the strong Prosecution case would go heavily against him.
Giving evidence is likely to also destroy him but it is the lesser of the two I guess.

Am expecting plenty of I dont remembers and maybe even an I cant be bothered any more and an Im hungry now are we nearly finished and even some :tears:

 

[JudgeJudi]

<RSBM>

Obviously the mysterious Nick and Joe will be blamed - but how? I am really intrigued to hear the story his lawyer is going to tell when he opens the case for the defence.

Random thoughts - might he suggest N&J kidnapped her while he was out doing errands, and forced her to write the 'Broadstairs note'? Could he use the fact the bodies weren't found for 3 months to his advantage in some way? I would love to hear some possible theories. Presumably his story will have been scrutinised by defence and pros and there will be no tangible evidence of N&J?

If the defence wish to rely on Nick and Joe, IS must take the stand and testify and this includes being cross-examined. Otherwise it would be classified as hearsay and not be admissible.

An exception would be if IS was unable (as opposed to being unwilling) to testify, and he would have to be deemed unfit to be a witness because of a bodily or mental condition.

 

[neteditor]

<RSBM>



If the defence wish to rely on Nick and Joe, IS must take the stand and testify and this includes being cross-examined. Otherwise it would be classified as hearsay and not be admissible.
<snip>

Indeed I had made this point much earlier up-thread. They couldn't have allowed Nick and Joe to be brought into evidence if he doens't intend to take the stand and be examined on it. I am very much looking forward to that, he hasn't got the intelligence or wit required to argue with a QC. Mincemeat comes to mind :jail:

 

[Squamous]

I wonder if he's going to keep up the disappearing note story or just admit that he made that bit up (probably under pressure from Nick and Joe, who held a duvet to his head and forced him)

 

[neteditor]

I wonder if he's going to keep up the disappearing note story or just admit that he made that bit up (probably under pressure from Nick and Joe, who held a duvet to his head and forced him)

Laughing so hard - death by dangerous duvet

 

[Alyce]

Indeed I had made this point much earlier up-thread. They couldn't have allowed Nick and Joe to be brought into evidence if he doens't intend to take the stand and be examined on it. I am very much looking forward to that, he hasn't got the intelligence or wit required to argue with a QC. Mincemeat comes to mind :jail:

NetEditor - far as I recall, IS - via his Defence team - submitted a signed statement re Nick and Joe to CPS ? on December 12 last year ( just ahead of his final pre trial hearing on December 16 ).
Does this mean the statement could have been introduced as part of his evidence even if he had chosen not to testify ?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Courts are fascinating places. I took a young man doing work experience to court one morning to listen to some bail applications. There were about 15 or so defendants, but only one was granted bail. The irony was that this man had been charged with attempted murder, the most serious crime that morning, and his victim attended court to give evidence on his behalf as to why he should be granted bail. She said he could live at her place while awaiting trial. The judge said WTTE, &#8220;Madam, far be it for me to deny bail if you, the intended victim, choose to take him into your home&#8221;, whereupon bail was granted.

 

[mrjitty]

Who else could have done it?

'Beyond reasonable doubt' doesn't mean 'beyond ANY doubt'.
Absolute proof isn't necessary as long as there is enough circumstantial evidence (and there is shedloads of that).
You can't use DNA-type evidence where the crime has been committed in a domestic setting because the perpetrator's DNA is legitimately everywhere.

Exactly!

Let's no go full Masipa

The prosecution need also only disprove versions actually raised by the defence and or evidence at trial.

Where identity of the murderer is the key issue at trial, then thanks to the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, the defence can run a passive defence along the lines of "prove it was me"

The trouble with that is the accused already ran the story "there was no murder"

 

[mrjitty]

Indeed I had made this point much earlier up-thread. They couldn't have allowed Nick and Joe to be brought into evidence if he doens't intend to take the stand and be examined on it. I am very much looking forward to that, he hasn't got the intelligence or wit required to argue with a QC. Mincemeat comes to mind :jail:

Nick and Joe is currently allowed into evidence to the extent of his son's testimony

i.e. The son is a direct witness to being told about Nick and Joe in December

However it may not be used as proof of the incident related

This is why the son is a crucial prosecution witness - as he proves the late invention of the defence.