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

[Cherwell]

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.

I have to say I would be surprised if the sons didn't know about the cesspit. They are grown men, and I would expect them to have been informed on practical matters concerning the general operation of the services at their home - for example, knowing where stopcocks are located in case the water had to be turned off at any time. All that sort of thing.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I would be very surprised if Helen weighed more than 9 stone, looking at photographs of her.

I agree. If you look at her wrists in various photographs the bones are very prominent. IMO She may even be less than 9 stone. Photographs "add" weight and this is generally determined to be around 10 lbs. It is a known phenomenon and probably why a lot of us loathe having our photos taken. The following link has plenty of information on this subject.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...2&ie=UTF-8#q=how+much+weight+does+a+photo+add

 

[Lit Up]

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!

This has been my first time in court ever, so I had been expecting a huge courtroom, with a proper public "gallery", almost like a theatre; defence and prosecution constantly objecting to each other; judge shouting "order! order!"; IS in handcuffs/leg irons :jail: flanked by a pair of burly police, scores of public coming to see, press gallery packed, paps with old school camera flashes outside court etc. Clearly I was wrong, but one thing which they still do is "all rise" before the judge comes in, and of course those bloody stupid wigs

On the day I went when IS case was called off, I sat in a couple of other cases; one a pair of teenage robbers, and another a death by driving without due care. Certainly the careless driving one was quite boring as they discussed the range of visibility on the roads, what the guy was wearing etc so I can see now how so much of court business is very mundane, even when it involves matters of life and death

 

[Tortoise]

This is what I'm piecing together from the evidence.

On the day he killed Helen, IS didn't have a story planned beyond Helen and Boris going out locally, either walking or visiting someone by public transport or taxi, and not returning. Perhaps she forgot to tell him she had plans, he is playing on her forgetfulness. He will raise the alarm on Tuesday when he wakes up and realises she didn't come home while he was asleep.

That is the sole reason behind the story about Helen having an incident Monday morning in her Jeep.

It would explain why her Jeep was outside and she wasn't there. I believe he told that story to his sons on Monday evening (I do not believe the 'coincidence' of two sons knowing Helen wasn't at home and not saying a word, one maybe, not both). After that IS has to repeat that driving incident to all and sundry because that's what he'd told J and O. It became a permanent fixture in his account of Monday morning. Police were unable to find Helen or her Jeep anywhere on CCTV or ANPR that morning. Helen's online activity that morning shows IS made it up.

IS panicked overnight about his hiding place for Helen and Boris not being as secure as he once reckoned. What if it was discovered? He had to do something to stop a search and give everyone an indication of where Helen had gone. He thought this was fail-safe, everyone would be thrown off the scent by the Broadstairs story, police would have no reason to search the home beyond anything cursory, looking for her belongings etc.

He has to invent a note because it's too late now to send a fake text message from Helen's phone, and it's also too late to send an email from Helen to him. He knows his sons know Helen wasn't home on Monday night.

While O and J are at work on Tuesday he practices Helen's handwriting and produces a note. "Gone to Broadstairs. Ring me. Love you xx".

He hasn't included anything in the note about Helen not wanting him to contact her in any way. He's written 'ring me'. He's made it a loving note because he doesn't want anyone to think they had argued before she left.

So why does he then start to tell people that Helen said 'don't contact me in any way'? I believe this was first said to John Bailey on Wednesday. He realises (bit slow off the mark) that he hasn't phoned her. He's put 'ring me' in the note looking at it from one angle of creating a harmonious relationship, but not looking at it in terms of it requiring him to act on her request. This is a man who is fire-fighting. As people ask questions he is spurred into action to create a solution. He forgets to destroy the note but doesn't think it's important because he's not expecting police to search his things.

So he dupes J and O first on Tuesday night. Hence the nerves and calling O into his study to tell him Helen's gone to Broadstairs, as if it's some massive announcement. O just shrugs and says it's her place and up to her what she does.

Then John Bailey calls early on Wednesday morning. He's not prepared for that and blurts out 'I thought you would know.' This is an outright lie on the spot, that sees him well and truly bitten on the bum. Whatever he says about Joe and Nick he can't explain saying he thought Helen would have told John she was going to or was already in Broadstairs. The story is that it was unscheduled and unexpected so she didn't give anyone advance notice, and if IS knew Helen had come to harm from J&N she wouldn't have let her brother know she was there for an impromptu break either.

IS has to tell JohnB about the 'Jeep upset', because he's locked into that account now by J & O being aware of it, and John specifically asks him what happened that morning. What stands out is IS can't say why she was upset. This shows he has moved on to another far bigger, better and more relevant story to relate (the note), and is caught out by the question. Prior to the call from John he hadn't invented a plausible scenario and finds it impossible to embellish on the spot. His original plan had already fallen by the wayside. Everyone who knows Helen would not be surprised she hadn't driven herself to Broadstairs because she wasn't a confident driver, so the Jeep outside didn't need an 'incident' any more.

That is how I believe the story evolved by Wednesday.

ETA So why doesn't he write a new note saying 'don't contact me?'. John Bailey asked him to read him the note over the phone. Because he hadn't given the actual wording of this any thought yet, he decided on the spur of the moment to say he had thrown it away.

This became another new addition to his version to tell police on Friday - 'I threw the note away.'

 

[Alyce]

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.

This is a moot point now anyway, because we now know IS is going to give evidence - but I mentioned up thread that ISs defence team submitted a signed statement on December 12, re Nick and Joe. This was ahead of ISs final pre trial hearing on December 16.
My Q was - could the defence have submitted this as evidence, even if IS did not testify ?

 

[mrjitty]

So I am contrarian on the Alarm

I think it helps to prove guilt provided we use the correct approach to circumstantial evidence.

The rule is circumstantial evidence is not to be individually henpecked.

Rather we take all the facts that were provided and examine what web they weave before we make inferences.

So the prosecution proved the alarm was not turned on, and this was not the usual pattern. We know something unusual happened that day. Poor Helen was murdered.

So what inference to draw from this?

Let's examine the rest of the relevant circumstantial evidence.

First we know that for many weeks, the accused maintained that Helen had left a note and voluntarily gone away and that the note was thrown away. This story was confirmed by witnesses and in multiple police statements. Second, the victim stopped communicating with the outside world before IS left the house.

From the discovery of the body and the alarm, we may infer Helen in fact never left the house. We know this because it is the defence case she was home, at secondly the alarm was never turned on. So she was killed at home. It confirms the place of the murder. This is the value of the alarm!

So from this we can further infer there never was a note, unless by some crazy chance, just as she was leaving for time away by herself and not to be contacted, unknown persons entered the house murdered her and concealed the body so that she went missing!

Furthermore we can therefore infer that her incapacity dovetails with the time she stopped responding to communications.

So this is all deeply troubling for the defence.

For some reason the victim stopped answering her phone/messages, wrote the note, then was murdered by two mysterious people and hidden in the cess pit all to make it look like she disappeared.

But if this really happened where is the evidence of the murder?

Shouldn't there be a struggle?

The failure for the alarm to be on is in fact one of the the glaring holes in IS's original story and quite probably a key reason why the police were all over him.

 

[mrjitty]

I have to say I would be surprised if the sons didn't know about the cesspit. They are grown men, and I would expect them to have been informed on practical matters concerning the general operation of the services at their home - for example, knowing where stopcocks are located in case the water had to be turned off at any time. All that sort of thing.

The real key is the sons have cast iron alibis

So that leaves IS as last man standing so to speak.

He is the last one to see the victim alive, and he controls the premises.

That is why the defence is reduced to inventing mysterious perps months later

But the problem with that is the note and the drugs.

 

[mrjitty]

This is a moot point now anyway, because we now know IS is going to give evidence - but I mentioned up thread that ISs defence team submitted a signed statement on December 12, re Nick and Joe. This was ahead of ISs final pre trial hearing on December 16.
My Q was - could the defence have submitted this as evidence, even if IS did not testify ?

It's not actually moot - it's key prosecution evidence which can be used by the Prosecution within the limits of the hearsay rule.

A sworn police statement can be admitted. That is the advantage of giving one.

But developing comments by others above, Nick and Joe is currently hurting the defence if IS does not testify and convince the jury that they at least exist.

 

[Alyce]

It's not actually moot - it's key prosecution evidence which can be used by the Prosecution within the limits of the hearsay rule.

A sworn police statement can be admitted. That is the advantage of giving one.

But developing comments by others above, Nick and Joe is currently hurting the defence if IS does not testify and convince the jury that they at least exist.

Thank you Mr Jitty - I have been giving myself a headache reading all the legal stuff - well explained.

 

[mrjitty]

This has been my first time in court ever, so I had been expecting a huge courtroom, with a proper public "gallery", almost like a theatre; defence and prosecution constantly objecting to each other; judge shouting "order! order!"; IS in handcuffs/leg irons :jail: flanked by a pair of burly police, scores of public coming to see, press gallery packed, paps with old school camera flashes outside court etc. Clearly I was wrong, but one thing which they still do is "all rise" before the judge comes in, and of course those bloody stupid wigs

On the day I went when IS case was called off, I sat in a couple of other cases; one a pair of teenage robbers, and another a death by driving without due care. Certainly the careless driving one was quite boring as they discussed the range of visibility on the roads, what the guy was wearing etc so I can see now how so much of court business is very mundane, even when it involves matters of life and death

It depends a bit on what Court you are in

The High Court on the strand is pretty awesome.

My first appearance in the High Court was much more like you would have expected (though it was commercial not criminal).

It was a commercial list motion - massive court room and the whole place was packed with aggressive barristers waiting their turn at bat.

The district court i visited was much more like a public service shop - fast action, no fuss, no glamour.

 

[JudgeJudi]

<RSBM>

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.

This is incorrect.

UK Bar Standards Board

12 Confessions of Guilt

12.1 In considering the duty of counsel retained to defend a person charged with an offence who confesses to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged, it is essential to bear the following points clearly in mind:
&#8230;
(b) that the issue in a criminal trial is always whether the defendant is guilty of the offence charged, never whether he is innocent;

(c) that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution.

12.2 It follows that the mere fact that a person charged with a crime has confessed to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged is no bar to that barrister appearing or continuing to appear in his defence, nor indeed does such a confession release the barrister from his imperative duty to do all that he honourably can for his client.

12.3 Such a confession, however, imposes very strict limitations on the conduct of the defence. A barrister must not assert as true that which he knows to be false. He must not connive at, much less attempt to substantiate, a fraud.

You can read more at the following link:

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.u...andards-for-the-conduct-of-professional-work/

 

[mrjitty]

This is what I'm piecing together from the evidence.

On the day he killed Helen, IS didn't have a story planned beyond Helen and Boris going out locally, either walking or visiting someone by public transport or taxi, and not returning. Perhaps she forgot to tell him she had plans, he is playing on her forgetfulness. He will raise the alarm on Tuesday when he wakes up and realises she didn't come home while he was asleep.

That is the sole reason behind the story about Helen having an incident Monday morning in her Jeep.

It would explain why her Jeep was outside and she wasn't there. I believe he told that story to his sons on Monday evening (I do not believe the 'coincidence' of two sons knowing Helen wasn't at home and not saying a word, one maybe, not both). After that IS has to repeat that driving incident to all and sundry because that's what he'd told J and O. It became a permanent fixture in his account of Monday morning. Police were unable to find Helen or her Jeep anywhere on CCTV or ANPR that morning. Helen's online activity that morning shows IS made it up.

IS panicked overnight about his hiding place for Helen and Boris not being as secure as he once reckoned. What if it was discovered? He had to do something to stop a search and give everyone an indication of where Helen had gone. He thought this was fail-safe, everyone would be thrown off the scent by the Broadstairs story, police would have no reason to search the home beyond anything cursory, looking for her belongings etc.

He has to invent a note because it's too late now to send a fake text message from Helen's phone, and it's also too late to send an email from Helen to him. He knows his sons know Helen wasn't home on Monday night.

While O and J are at work on Tuesday he practices Helen's handwriting and produces a note. "Gone to Broadstairs. Ring me. Love you xx".

He hasn't included anything in the note about Helen not wanting him to contact her in any way. He's written 'ring me'. He's made it a loving note because he doesn't want anyone to think they had argued before she left.

So why does he then start to tell people that Helen said 'don't contact me in any way'? I believe this was first said to John Bailey on Wednesday. He realises (bit slow off the mark) that he hasn't phoned her. He's put 'ring me' in the note looking at it from one angle of creating a harmonious relationship, but not looking at it in terms of it requiring him to act on her request. This is a man who is fire-fighting. As people ask questions he is spurred into action to create a solution. He forgets to destroy the note but doesn't think it's important because he's not expecting police to search his things.

So he dupes J and O first on Tuesday night. Hence the nerves and calling O into his study to tell him Helen's gone to Broadstairs, as if it's some massive announcement. O just shrugs and says it's her place and up to her what she does.

Then John Bailey calls early on Wednesday morning. He's not prepared for that and blurts out 'I thought you would know.' This is an outright lie on the spot, that sees him well and truly bitten on the bum. Whatever he says about Joe and Nick he can't explain saying he thought Helen would have told John she was going to or was already in Broadstairs. The story is that it was unscheduled and unexpected so she didn't give anyone advance notice, and if IS knew Helen had come to harm from J&N she wouldn't have let her brother know she was there for an impromptu break either.

IS has to tell JohnB about the 'Jeep upset', because he's locked into that account now by J & O being aware of it, and John specifically asks him what happened that morning. What stands out is IS can't say why she was upset. This shows he has moved on to another far bigger, better and more relevant story to relate (the note), and is caught out by the question. Prior to the call from John he hadn't invented a plausible scenario and finds it impossible to embellish on the spot. His original plan had already fallen by the wayside. Everyone who knows Helen would not be surprised she hadn't driven herself to Broadstairs because she wasn't a confident driver, so the Jeep outside didn't need an 'incident' any more.

That is how I believe the story evolved by Wednesday.

ETA So why doesn't he write a new note saying 'don't contact me?'. John Bailey asked him to read him the note over the phone. Because he hadn't given the actual wording of this any thought yet, he decided on the spur of the moment to say he had thrown it away.

This became another new addition to his version to tell police on Friday - 'I threw the note away.'

I think there is a lot of truth to this - especially the first part!

I too think he made up the note on the second day. As why did he not explain Helen being missing on the first night? Or maybe his idea was the son would discover her missing?

On Tuesday he runs squarely into the problem of what to do now she is "missing" and that can't be concealed. He has to do something to avoid calling the police as I guess he is not ready for that.

The "plan" does not seem much more sophisticated than the Becky Watts style murder.

In other words, the last person who saw her did it, but had planned to send the police on a wild goose chase.

This will have been apparent to the police all along.

 

[mrjitty]

<RSBM>



This is incorrect.

UK Bar Standards Board

12 Confessions of Guilt

12.1 In considering the duty of counsel retained to defend a person charged with an offence who confesses to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged, it is essential to bear the following points clearly in mind:
&#8230;
(b) that the issue in a criminal trial is always whether the defendant is guilty of the offence charged, never whether he is innocent;

(c) that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution.

12.2 It follows that the mere fact that a person charged with a crime has confessed to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged is no bar to that barrister appearing or continuing to appear in his defence, nor indeed does such a confession release the barrister from his imperative duty to do all that he honourably can for his client.

12.3 Such a confession, however, imposes very strict limitations on the conduct of the defence. A barrister must not assert as true that which he knows to be false. He must not connive at, much less attempt to substantiate, a fraud.

You can read more at the following link:

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.u...andards-for-the-conduct-of-professional-work/

This is something that was drummed into us, even in a civil context.

It's just not worth getting struck off and humiliated to lie for your client. Of course the pressure to do so is pretty immense.

 

[mrjitty]

Based on the evidence so far, my feeling is IS was acting up to this murder.

I suspect he was acting out a control fantasy - then went too far, murdered Helen and had to cover it up fast.

IMO the cess pit probably plays a role in that fantasy, but obviously it is a dumb hiding place.

it was just the best one he had at short notice.

 

[Cherwell]

Re the Jeep incident story. I suspect that he based this on something that did happen, but it's more likely to have involved a past incident that Helen experienced on the motorway while driving the Fiat. Something that contributed to her decision to buy the Jeep.

The real key is the sons have cast iron alibis

So that leaves IS as last man standing so to speak.

Oh yes, I wasn't suggesting that the sons had anything to do with it. Just that they would probably have known about the cesspit. I doubt they ever gave it a thought though.

 

[LozDa]

I am so late to the party, but I do so hope Dolly is still ok after her cup of tea!! I've not laughed so hard in a while. Amazing stuff, SUCH dedication!

Pretty sure IS will be taking the stand only to try and prove how weak and feeble he is, so couldn't possibly have done this crime. I think he knows the jig is up regarding Joe and Nick, but I think he's hoping he can cast just about enough doubt...

I think we're all looking forward to the entertainment. Although, of course, only because when he's sent down I want him to feel like an absolute chump for having to have sat there and tried to convince people of Joe and Nick. He's manipulated so many people throughout this entire case (and I believe throughout his life, but we won't go down that road again - the thread has been blissfully amicable for a long while again, I don't want to risk it...!!), so it will be such sweet justice.

Seriously - Dolly, you're ok, right? :laughing:

 

[mrjitty]

Re the Jeep incident story. I suspect that he based this on something that did happen, but it's more likely to have involved a past incident that Helen experienced on the motorway while driving the Fiat. Something that contributed to her decision to buy the Jeep.





Oh yes, I wasn't suggesting that the sons had anything to do with it. Just that they would probably have known about the cesspit. I doubt they ever gave it a thought though.

Agreed

The key point is that the only realistic killer is someone who lived there.

 

[Tortoise]

Based on the evidence so far, my feeling is IS was acting up to this murder.

I suspect he was acting out a control fantasy - then went too far, murdered Helen and had to cover it up fast.

IMO the cess pit probably plays a role in that fantasy, but obviously it is a dumb hiding place.

it was just the best one he had at short notice.

I think it was always his plan.

The fast amendment of the standing order shows me that.

The drugging and cold dispatch shows he had no emotional connection with Helen, from a time at least that they were making wedding plans and visiting venues. Even if Helen was planning on changing her will in the few days before her death, it doesn't explain 3 months of drugging.

I don't believe he thought he would use Helen's impaired state of mind to not kill her but only invoke the power of attorney. If Helen had to be assessed by a doctor they would run tests and all would be revealed. Heck even a stay at her mums for a brief recovery period would mean she would become drug-free and it would become clear this wasn't a permanent mental health issue.

So I do believe he waited until the will and poa were in place, didn't act immediately because that would stand out, then thought the time was perfect (she had signed the papers to sell the only property she had not bequeathed to him) to kill her, thinking the poa would permit him to spend her money, and get his hands on her estate when she was missing presumed dead, if he hadn't sold everything already by that stage with his false perception of a poa.

Seriously, I think this was long in the planning and other equally serious questions arise about his past. I think he will have been or is being investigated already, I don't think police will be waiting for the outcome of this trial.

 

[Alyce]

Re the Jeep incident story. I suspect that he based this on something that did happen, but it's more likely to have involved a past incident that Helen experienced on the motorway while driving the Fiat. Something that contributed to her decision to buy the Jeep.





Oh yes, I wasn't suggesting that the sons had anything to do with it. Just that they would probably have known about the cesspit. I doubt they ever gave it a thought though.

Indeed. Best way to tell a lie, use as much truth as possible in the story.

What he forgot was ( as Tortoise said ) no one would have expected Helen to drive to Broadstairs.
Which left only taxi, train or a friend taking her. All able to be checked.

 

[Alyce]

I think it was always his plan.

The fast amendment of the standing order shows me that.

The drugging and cold dispatch shows he had no emotional connection with Helen, from a time at least that they were making wedding plans and visiting venues. Even if Helen was planning on changing her will in the few days before her death, it doesn't explain 3 months of drugging.

I don't believe he thought he would use Helen's impaired state of mind to not kill her but only invoke the power of attorney. If Helen had to be assessed by a doctor they would run tests and all would be revealed. Heck even a stay at her mums for a brief recovery period would mean she would become drug-free and it would become clear this wasn't a permanent mental health issue.

So I do believe he waited until the will and poa were in place, didn't act immediately because that would stand out, then thought the time was perfect (she had signed the papers to sell the only property she had not bequeathed to him) to kill her, thinking the poa would permit him to spend her money, and get his hands on her estate when she was missing presumed dead, if he hadn't sold everything already by that stage with his false perception of a poa.

Seriously, I think this was long in the planning and other equally serious questions arise about his past. I think he will have been or is being investigated already, I don't think police will be waiting for the outcome of this trial.

I wonder when Helen first decided to sell Gateshead.
Was it January ( begininng of drugs ? ) but then delayed due to ISs health concerns and eventual operation.