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

[ZaZara]

If they make a drama doc of this case, been watching Emily Watson in Apple Tree Yard on BBC1 and could envisage her playing Helen.

Eerie! Too bad Alan Rickman is no longer with us..... RIP

 

[neteditor]

*makes large note in red capitals to avoid internet dating!

My ex husband knew from mutual friends that I am a huge Formula 1 fan, and made the mistake of thinking he could pretend he knew as much about it as I did. He also discovered the hard way that I knew as much about the inside of a computer as he did, when I opened mine and discovered he'd swapped my high quality memory boards for his lesser ones. Someone remind me why I still married him? :shame:

Love was definitely blind. Perhaps Helen was the same?

 

[neteditor]

Tortoise, may I say I love your analyses, you always seem to pick up on what seem like small points that I haven't spotted. Thank you for being so astute and all the work you put in to the evidence.

 

[Interested Bystander]

From an earlier post I think I read there was only one more Prosecution witness left. Anyone like to guess "who" this might be. Most areas seem to have been covered by the police but not, IMO, in enough detail. Does the Prosecution usually bring up a big gun as the last witness in order to "seal" the case?

 

[Joely 123]

*makes large note in red capitals to avoid internet dating!

My ex husband knew from mutual friends that I am a huge Formula 1 fan, and made the mistake of thinking he could pretend he knew as much about it as I did. He also discovered the hard way that I knew as much about the inside of a computer as he did, when I opened mine and discovered he'd swapped my high quality memory boards for his lesser ones. Someone remind me why I still married him? :shame:

Love was definitely blind. Perhaps Helen was the same?

I always said that Helen was an 'open book' to IS through her gift to supporting other grieving widows and widowers, and her writing necessity to tell it how it may be. Sadly, Helen, knowing how it WAS had removed herself from many of her 'help line' friends - she had been taken in to a new location, where she would had talked differently within her new neighbours, with her love of IS his boys. She was hoping to leap from pain of JS grief - and enter a new world. She didn't know her old self and blamed herself through this transition of TRUST - and when we do that we question our own ability within trust and so go overboard to handing over trust to 'another' - he knew this, saw her coming into his capture, his designed world for her - his plan being able to be manipulated under the guise of rescue. Dear Helen was searching for 'rescue' from agony of grief - searching for a new life and fell into a plotter's greed.
She gave EVERYTHING to him - besides worrying about his health - she wished him to have a save haven of a financially secure future. I would like more prove of how the wedding venues collapsed - one, sad, two, disappointing .. three . lies? x

 

[cottonweaver]

I think if you were worming your way into someone's life, the first thing you'd do is pretend you loved their dog as much as they did.

.....and the second would be mother-in-laws!

 

[Alyce]

Just finished watching The Widower.

Lots of parallels there - and Salford University !! spooky

feel sorry for the son, although at least he is growing up on the other side of the world

 

[cottonweaver]

"so I’m…we’ve just decided we should report it."

By correcting himself from I’m to we’ve he is including people that he hasn’t already introduced. It’s almost impossible for the brain to make a mistake when selecting which pronoun to use, it’s a fairly automatic process. How many people are making this call? One. How many partners does Helen have? One. Because he’s corrected himself, where it’s not logical to do so because he hasn’t mentioned anyone else yet, it’s really important to him.

Why is it important to him to share responsibility for this decision to report it? Is it to say I’m not concerned, as the general tone of his call reflects?

Should also points to reluctance.

BIB could he be including the "we" to put himself on an equal standing with those concerned? ie. The blameless worried, all in it together?

I always assumed he added "we" because it was more of JB's decision , triggering the official missing report, not IS who was happy to sit back and let many more days elapse before the alarm was raised officially.

 

[cottonweaver]

Just finished watching The Widower.

Lots of parallels there - and Salford University !! spooky

feel sorry for the son, although at least he is growing up on the other side of the world

Me too. The extended family seem great though, so I hope he has had help to deal with it all.

 

[cottonweaver]

No he wouldn't know they would ask for his phone, and they never got his phone, or hers, but they could access her email, and his. I had a horrible thought (fleetingly) - he sent a single X on Diane's birthday and to Helen on 15th - could these kisses be a sinister fingers up FU type of gesture? What a 'orrible mind I have!

Think you're just putting yourself in his shoes - yes , it's right to imagine the worst.

On the phone and the text it's also worth remembering that between aprl 15 th and April 20th the local police had looked at his phone.

Dc Daines is now being cross examined. She admits that Stewart’s phone had been looked at by police on April 20.

That was a big point for the defence to counter the reluctance and then losing that phone later on. We'll hear it again next week no doubt.
So he could well have sent that just to be able to show the cops what he had sent and not received a reply to.

BTW What I still don't understand ( cause I have since forgotten how it works ) is how come, in a serious crime like this, cops can't draw down all of his past phone activity from his call provider - even though the phone is gone. (It's not liked he was using an encrypted message app. So why can't they access records of past text content and search histories from a lost phone? We covered this in another case here. )

 

[cottonweaver]

Regarding the line I've bolded, I wish I could agree with you, but I really do feel it is just sloppy work by the crown. It would have served a very useful purpose, showing how IS changed his story.

We know Oliver leaves for work at 7:15am. I think it very unlikely that he works 8am to 5pm, and more likely that he finishes work at around 4pm, with an early start. Even if he dropped in to his girlfriend's house to pick up his satnav on the way home, he could have been home by 5pm. Which is when IS says he arrived home and found the note. Who got there first? If he was first, was the alarm not set and is that normal? Boris didn't greet him, wasn't that unusual? Where did he think Helen and Boris were?

Just a few simple questions, to get to the truth, which is what the court needs to know.

and how come we have that delay in returning?
OS:

“It was normal. Everything was normal. I didn’t see Helen or the dog. Usually I would be home at 10pm, but this night was different and I was delayed coming home. I got home about 11.30pm, and I didn’t see anyone.”

meanwhile JS and IS are tucking into a Chinese takeaway. Wonder if IS gave OS a quick ring to ask should he order something for Oliver who could have been back home for 10pm? We know just how thoughtful IS is. He thought about Chinese meals for folk he thought were in another county.

On the way back from bowls I picked a Chinese up, thinking Helen could have some if she was here [home], as well.

“It was getting quite late, I did hope Helen would be back. Helen knew I was going to go there, we discussed it.

JS

“I got home between 9-10pm.We had a Chinese in the living room whilst watching TV and talking how the game had gone.

so little clarity. ^

here's another

“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. “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.

So HB knew he was going to the competition but Jamie, the one who really needed to know, didn't.

Helen knew I was going to go there, we discussed it

 

[Tortoise]

BIB could he be including the "we" to put himself on an equal standing with those concerned? ie. The blameless worried, all in it together?

I always assumed he added "we" because it was more of JB's decision , triggering the official missing report, not IS who was happy to sit back and let many more days elapse before the alarm was raised officially.

Yes, it's like he is intimating there's probably nothing at all wrong and she's hiding out somewhere. Remember the whole Agatha Christie disappearance that was talked about.

She's an adult, no need to make a fuss, there are people who are saying we should report it... but please don't bother searching, love Cyclops.

 

[Alyce]

Think you're just putting yourself in his shoes - yes , it's right to imagine the worst.

On the phone and the text it's also worth remembering that between aprl 15 th and April 20th the local police had looked at his phone.

That was a big point for the defence to counter the reluctance and then losing that phone later on. We'll hear it again next week no doubt.
So he could well have sent that just to be able to show the cops what he had sent and not received a reply to.

BTW What I still don't understand ( cause I have since forgotten how it works ) is how come, in a serious crime like this, cops can't draw down all of his past phone activity from his call provider - even though the phone is gone. (It's not liked he was using an encrypted message app. So why can't they access records of past text content and search histories from a lost phone? We covered this in another case here. )

Yes, wasn't it Becky Watts case - where they tried to get info from the Demetrius brothers phones ( I know there's an apostrophe missing somewhere but it's late ! )
They got a few messages, knew there were more , but could not see the message detail.

 

[ColourPurple]

MillyM - Bravo, I agree with every word! When I first joined this forum around ten days ago I was shot down in flames by one member for expressing the same view regarding IS' sons. Their accounts of Monday 11th April and beyond don't ring true to me. It simply isn't credible they had no discussion whatsoever with their father about the whereabouts of Helen and Boris on Monday 11th April. Even the absence of little Boris running around would, I'm sure, have prompted such a conversation. Maybe their father did give them an explanation, which he contradicted with a different story on Tuesday 12th. I felt the prosecution didn't press them and perhaps decided not to, as it wouldn't serve any useful purpose?

I also have the impression Helen was somewhat taken for granted by IS and the boys in the million pound mansion they were living in thanks to her. She didn't seem to be especially missed by IS and the boys - obviously we know IS had killed her but there haven't been any indications his sons were worried about or missed her. The fact she ended up murdered and dumped in human excrement with her beloved dog in that home she did so much to create screams that she was neither loved nor respected by those closest to her.

I agree that it served no useful purpose to question their stories if they're witnesses for the prosecution and if th prosecutions sole focus is IS. If th boys stories unravel then all it would do is question their involvement and put a question mark over whether IS was solely responsible.
I also questioned why th phone call was brought up and figured it was because they knew IS phoning their work would show up in phone records but th subject that was discussed wouldn't. So they just gave a reason for th call that couldn't be proved or disproved. Personally I would have liked to know when th tickets were bought and when the phone call was made to see if they even match up .

 

[Alyce]

Yes, it's like he is intimating there's probably nothing at all wrong and she's hiding out somewhere. Remember the whole Agatha Christie disappearance that was talked about.

She's an adult, no need to make a fuss, there are people who are saying we should report it... but please don't bother searching, love Cyclops.

That just reminded me of the line about

If Helen came back now I dont think I would want to be with her any more

So if I dont want her - then dont trouble yourselves any further.

 

[snoopydog]

I agree that it served no useful purpose to question their stories if they're witnesses for the prosecution and if th prosecutions sole focus is IS. If th boys stories unravel then all it would do is question their involvement and put a question mark over whether IS was solely responsible.
I also questioned why th phone call was brought up and figured it was because they knew IS phoning their work would show up in phone records but th subject that was discussed wouldn't. So they just gave a reason for th call that couldn't be proved or disproved. Personally I would have liked to know when th tickets were bought and when the phone call was made to see if they even match up .

I was thinking he called his sons mobile phone at work. Not that he literally called the work office. Who does that nowadays? I'd find it quite odd to call someone's work number....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

As for feelings for Helen, this quote talking about the birthday/tickets said enough for me

“In the end we went while Helen was missing. We wanted to get away from the house as it was very different without Boris there”, he added

No mention of wanting to get away from the house as it was different without Helen there

 

[ColourPurple]

I was thinking he called his sons mobile phone at work. Not that he literally called the work office. Who does that nowadays? I'd find it quite odd to call someone's work number....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could be either. I just typed the quickest wording as I'm on my ipad and keep losing posts and having to rewrite lol

 

[snoopydog]

Could be either. I just typed the quickest wording as I'm on my ipad and keep losing posts and having to rewrite lol

I think the way it was reported it sounded like he called his work number but I reckon it was his mobile he called. I don't really think there's much odd about that call. He could have text him I suppose...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

I think the way it was reported it sounded like he called his work number but I reckon it was his mobile he called. I don't really think there's much odd about that call. He could have text him I suppose...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've got my eldest son's work number for emergencies but yeah would normally text if it was something like a birthday treat. Would have been interesting to see when the tickets were paid for... before the 11th or was it part of his little spending spree after Helen died... and when the phone call was. But, as I say, I can see why they may be just accepting everything at face value. Bigger fish to fry!