GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #7

[Alyce]

Helen's computer being used at the time she was seen

“I am sure it was Monday April 11.” Mr Humphrey-Lahti is now being cross examined by the prosecution. He is being led through searches on Helen’s iPad, and it is agreed that at 9.24am Helen was searching on her iPad, at 9.28am there is a search for Brocket Hall, and a search starts again at 10.06am. Her searches appear to run through to 10.36am.


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12600802

 

[snoopydog]

having a personaility disorder doesn't exculpate, otherwise our prisons would be half empty.

Anyway, finally we get evidence that a neighbour did see HB that morning.

Quite amusingly though so far I don't see this helping his defence any, he said she hadn't taken the dog out that morning from what I remember..... [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

It's interesting these days over here you have to give an ID to get even a prepay phone

Which means ultimately the number is linked to an address

Is it not the same in Ingerlund with all the terror regs?

I don't live there now so could be wrong, but as far as I know it's still possible to buy a burner PAYG, cash up front no contract. Someone will correct me if things have changed.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Sighting fitted gap in computer use

Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer asks: “Does it appear possible she wasn’t at her computer between 9.28am and 10.06am?” Mr Humphrey-Lahti said: “If I left my house at 9.30am it would be within minutes I would have seen Helen.” Stuart Trimmer suggests that when Mr Humphrey-Lahti saw Helen Bailey, this appeared to fit the gap in her internet activity between 9.28am and 10.06am. Mr Humphrey-Lahti agreed. That is the end of his evidence.

 

[Alyce]

Sighting fitted gap in computer use

Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer asks: “Does it appear possible she wasn’t at her computer between 9.28am and 10.06am?” Mr Humphrey-Lahti said: “If I left my house at 9.30am it would be within minutes I would have seen Helen.” Stuart Trimmer suggests that when Mr Humphrey-Lahti saw Helen Bailey, this appeared to fit the gap in her internet activity between 9.28am and 10.06am. Mr Humphrey-Lahti agreed. That is the end of his evidence.



there ya go, nothing to see here really - it does fit with that short gap when Helen was not active on line

 

[Alyce]

Quite amusingly though so far I don't see this helping his defence any, he said she hadn't taken the dog out that morning from what I remember..... [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He will probably say that he meant Boris didnt get a proper walk on the Heath. It looks as though this was a quick 5 minute stretch.

 

[Alyce]

Helen Bailey 'familiar sight'

The next witness is Janice Richards, a learning resource manager. Mrs Richards made statements to police on April 20 and May 21 concerning a sighting of Helen Bailey. “I knew of Helen through her being an author, that’s how I recognised her. “Also, she doesn’t live very far away and I’m very good friends with her neighbour. “She became a fairly familiar sight walking Boris up and down the road. “I never spoke with her or met her myself, but if we walked past each other we would say hello. “I would see her not that often.”

 

[JudgeJudi]

Helen Bailey 'familiar sight'

The next witness is Janice Richards, a learning resource manager. Mrs Richards made statements to police on April 20 and May 21 concerning a sighting of Helen Bailey. “I knew of Helen through her being an author, that’s how I recognised her. “Also, she doesn’t live very far away and I’m very good friends with her neighbour. “She became a fairly familiar sight walking Boris up and down the road. “I never spoke with her or met her myself, but if we walked past each other we would say hello. “I would see her not that often".

 

[LozDa]

It would just fit..... there was a short break in on line activity 9.30 - 9.50 ish, so she may have taken Boris for a quick stretch up the road

Yes, I mean that it fits what we already know... which is why I'm confused this is a defence witness. We know Helen was chatting online, we know there was a short break in activity, so we know she was alive at this stage - pointing out that she was alive is pointless. Otherwise, are we to assume IS was making the searches, I mean...? This witness sighting doesn't fit any line of defence, is my point. Talk about scraping the barrel!

 

[Alyce]

witness saw Helen on 'April 11'

Mrs Richards said she saw Helen Bailey in April this year, narrowing it down to Monday April 11. She said: “Initially it could have been Saturday, Sunday or the Monday. “I was away on holiday until the evening of April 8 and the Tuesday 12 my daughter was back at college. “I managed to narrow it down to Monday April 11 that I saw Helen. I was busy Sunday and in the Saturday I was in Cambridge for most of the day.”


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12600802

 

[JudgeJudi]

My PC is freezing. Sorry.

 

[Alyce]

Yes, I mean that it fits what we already know... which is why I'm confused this is a defence witness. We know Helen was chatting online, we know there was a short break in activity, so we know she was alive at this stage - pointing out that she was alive is pointless. Otherwise, are we to assume IS was making the searches, I mean...? This witness sighting doesn't fit any line of defence, is my point. Talk about scraping the barrel!

I agree. I dont really see where this is leading or how it is going to majorly help the defence.

 

[snoopydog]

Sighting fitted gap in computer use

Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer asks: “Does it appear possible she wasn’t at her computer between 9.28am and 10.06am?” Mr Humphrey-Lahti said: “If I left my house at 9.30am it would be within minutes I would have seen Helen.” Stuart Trimmer suggests that when Mr Humphrey-Lahti saw Helen Bailey, this appeared to fit the gap in her internet activity between 9.28am and 10.06am. Mr Humphrey-Lahti agreed. That is the end of his evidence.

worst defence evidence EVER alert


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

Daughter pointed out Boris the dog

“On Monday April 11 when I saw Helen, my attention was drawn to her by my daughter Catherine, now 20, who does not know Helen at all. “Being a teenager [then] she was drawn by the appearance of a small dog and she drew my attention to Boris through my living room window. “Boris was on a lead, but I can’t remember which direction Helen was going. “When I saw Helen it was between probably 1pm and 2.20pm.”


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12600802


just to add, I remember this bit of evidence too, from way back, when this witness was not at all sure which day it was that she saw Helen...seems she has focussed her mind a bit more now !

 

[neteditor]

[video=twitter;831451293235499008]https://twitter.com/skyfieldeditor/status/831451293235499008[/video]

 

[Alyce]

No doubt' it was Helen

“We think this is the time we saw Helen. We saw her while we were standing in the living room, right by the front window. “Helen was outside on the road. “There is no doubt it was Helen that I saw. The doubt was the exact time I saw her.”


http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12600802




here we go, she said this last time, re the date and time...now she seems ok with the date, but still not sure about the time.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

Sighting fitted gap in computer use

Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer asks: “Does it appear possible she wasn’t at her computer between 9.28am and 10.06am?” Mr Humphrey-Lahti said: “If I left my house at 9.30am it would be within minutes I would have seen Helen.” Stuart Trimmer suggests that when Mr Humphrey-Lahti saw Helen Bailey, this appeared to fit the gap in her internet activity between 9.28am and 10.06am. Mr Humphrey-Lahti agreed. That is the end of his evidence.



there ya go, nothing to see here really - it does fit with that short gap when Helen was not active on line

Quite honestly if this is a taste of the defence witnesses to come they might as well just send the jury out right now!

 

[JudgeJudi]

Helen Bailey 'familiar sight'

The next witness is Janice Richards, a learning resource manager. Mrs Richards made statements to police on April 20 and May 21 concerning a sighting of Helen Bailey. “I knew of Helen through her being an author, that’s how I recognised her. “Also, she doesn’t live very far away and I’m very good friends with her neighbour. “She became a fairly familiar sight walking Boris up and down the road. “I never spoke with her or met her myself, but if we walked past each other we would say hello. “I would see her not that often.”

 

[Moll]

Not hugely convincing as to timing (coming up).

 

[cottonweaver]

Quite amusingly though so far I don't see this helping his defence any, he said she hadn't taken the dog out that morning from what I remember..... [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't remember TBH, his story has changed so much, would have to check back.
(Just remembering the press reports from 2016 and two neighbours' sightings were always referenced, that's all. Since he was arrested I was assuming he made that up or it was press error. Doesn't look like it matters much now though, not going to save him )