GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #6

[Alyce]

Yes, we'll have to have those pasted in on Monday, there's been so much evidence that we've been rather remiss on WS in scouring for accuracy.

Heads off to dunces corner with pen and paper to write out 100 times...must try harder :shame:

 

[ColourPurple]

Totally agree. I think he was going with the story 1, she vanished while on the way to broadstairs for a break and story 2, nijoedave wasn't made up till much later. I think this is the main problem with his defence. He's trying to fit a fabricated story with another fabricated story and they just don't fit. I think that's what strimmer is going to show. IS has 2 totally different defences and even if you believe one of them it still shows that he's a liar. I think that's why strimmer keeps giving him the options like, it has to have been him or nick and joe and IS says, yes. Those are the only times he's not lying because it's him.

Hope this makes a bit of sense I'm half asleep and rambling...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It makes sense to me but I'm half asleep too lol.

I think Trimmer's going to keep getting him to confirm that the culprit must be either him or Joe & Nick, then prove that Joe & Nick don't exist leaving him as the only option.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Sorry it has taken so long but here I hope is evidence that IS cannot read from his statement. It is from UK lawyers advice to defendants but I think it is dated 2011 so a little while ago.

http://www.mulrooneycraghill.com/what-happens-at-a-crown-court-trial-–-the-defence-case/

What happens when I give evidence?
The procedure for you is much the same as for the prosecution witnesses. You will be asked to leave the dock and to go into the witness box to give your evidence. You should remain standing while you give your evidence unless you have been given permission to sit down.
You will be asked to swear or affirm at the beginning of your evidence, whichever you choose you are promising to tell the truth.
You will then be asked non-leading questions by your barrister. He/she will start off by asking you to give the court your name and address. Your barrister is not allowed to lead you when you give your evidence i.e. say ‘its right isn’t it, you were afraid that the alleged victim was going to assault you?’ The evidence must come from you. If you don’t say it the jury won’t hear it.
You are not allowed to refer to your statement when giving your evidence and it is therefore essential that you know your case inside out, it’s what your barrister will be expecting you to say.

 

[snoopydog]

It makes sense to me but I'm half asleep too lol.

I think Trimmer's going to keep getting him to confirm that the culprit must be either him or Joe & Nick, then prove that Joe & Nick don't exist leaving him as the only option.

Yup me too. Plus IS keeps saying yes to him when he offers him two options. He's so stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

I'd also like to hear how his memory loss which he complained about constantly during story 1 has suddenly come back now nijoedave is on the go. Hoping strimmer totally roasts him tomorrow [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roasts him in his unassuming gentle way of course

I can only think of him as Strimmer now. I keep thinking of yanking on that engine cord to get my lawnmower fired up.

 

[Moll]

Catching up here.... I think Jamie KNOWS his dad did it and maybe it's part gut feeling and maybe it's to do with how IS had been behaving while Helen was missing I don't know but I reckon he knows it in himself and that's why he's not visiting him.

The way IS behaves is just odd so imagine you're around him all the time to see that. It would be pretty obvious he was guilty. Jamie would want to wish he wasn't mind you I'm sure....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree Snoopy, I thought that when the friend leading the walk commented on his never leaving his father's side, it could have been anxiety - knowing something wasn't right, but not yet certain.

 

[Squamous]

We haven't heard what context they were mentioned in in the diary - who were they? Were their names always connected or were they both mentioned separately in different contexts? And do their physical attributes match IS's descriptions of Vic and Bob?

I pasted some evidence from a police officer yesterday essentially saying they'd been given a few diaries and followed up all mentions of people called Joe or Jo that had any info like contact details or were linked with any companies, and did the same with Nick. It was only a tiny snippet reported so I can only infer that the investigations came to nothing (quelle surprise!!).

 

[snoopydog]

I agree Snoopy, I thought that when the friend leading the walk commented on his never leaving his father's side, it could have been anxiety - knowing something wasn't right, but not yet certain.

Yeah I had forgot about that happening. I wonder if he was keeping an eye on him to see how he was behaving... obviously from what we know now it was more than likely mostly inappropriate to the situation....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

Yup me too. Plus IS keeps saying yes to him when he offers him two options. He's so stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL my children do that. Milk or juice? Yes please. Grrrrr.

 

[ColourPurple]

I've been wondering if that's just sheer luck that there's a few matching names. We don't know how many diaries there are and how many people are noted in them. Could be loads...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there was only a Jo or Joe that they found in the diaries. But I think pretty much everywhere I've ever worked had a Jo or Joe working there.

His son must be sitting in court listening to IS's descriptions of Joe & Nick and wondering what the hell happened to the bald bloke that his dad told him about.

 

[MillyM]

We haven't heard what context they were mentioned in in the diary - who were they? Were their names always connected or were they both mentioned separately in different contexts? And do their physical attributes match IS's descriptions of Vic and Bob?

Snap. You would think these two would have been tracked down or would have recognised themselves in connection with John S.

 

[cottonweaver]

Heads off to dunces corner with pen and paper to write out 100 times...must try harder :shame:

I just assumed cause Tara has been so brilliant that that's the best out there, but if Sky has some good stuff I'll paste it tomorrow.
When we looked at the Sky tweeters they weren't great compared to tara so I am surprised to find we missed extra info. ( maybe sky are uploading later on, IDK?)

 

[Tortoise]

Well well well. Our last week of trial probably. I'd say 2 more days in the witness box and a day each for the wigs to sum up. Defence summing up should be interesting. He's going to have to try to keep a straight face.

 

[cottonweaver]

Well well well. Our last week of trial probably. I'd say 2 more days in the witness box and a day each for the wigs to sum up. Defence summing up should be interesting. He's going to have to try to keep a straight face.

Do you think it will finish Friday? Judge's directions before the weekend?

I hope to God IS is not going to start instructing his Def to recall witnesses and play this out longer.

 

[Tortoise]

Do you think it will finish Friday? Judge's directions before the weekend?

I hope to God IS is not going to start instructing his Def to recall witnesses and play this out longer.

I think that's what Judge implied to the jury. Defence doesn't have much if anything in the way of evidence to go through, except repeating the very tall tale, and they can't really pick holes in the prosecution's case either. Truth is truth.

Only witness he might bring is a consultant neurologist I suppose.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Snap. You would think these two would have been tracked down or would have recognised themselves in connection with John S.

Do you think he might be asked for JoeDave and NickDarren's surnames at some point?!!

 

[Tortoise]

Do you think he might be asked for JoeDave and NickDarren's surnames at some point?!!

You'd have thought he would have made some enquiries to find out their identities on Helen's behalf wouldn't you. Second thoughts...

 

[DollyDiamond]

So folks, I'm opening a book on IS' likely defence witnesses this week, any suggestions? Here are my guesses:

The milkman: ("He's a lovely bloke, drinks full fat and loves his Mullerlight Crunch Corner Yoghurts").

The postman ("He's a lovely bloke. No I haven't met him he's never up that early").

His barber ("He's a lovely bloke. Never met him 'til he was a police suspect, then I couldn't get him out of my shop").

The local chemist ("He's a lovely bloke, always picks up his prescriptions on time and he's my best customer for 'Anusol' cream").

Nick and Joe ("Who the * is Ian Stewart?")

 

[Joely 123]

Do you think it will finish Friday? Judge's directions before the weekend?

I hope to God IS is not going to start instructing his Def to recall witnesses and play this out longer.

Cottonweaver - that made me smile. I can't imagine when Strimmer has finished his cross examination, that IS would ever wish to see another Witness ever who would probably substantiate his lies. He is truly 'hedged' :scared: into his corner now and there is no way for him to hopefully redeem himself now.

 

[Cherwell]

Do you think he might be asked for JoeDave and NickDarren's surnames at some point?!!

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern