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

[Moll]

[video=twitter;831454148994486272]https://twitter.com/BBCNicola/status/831454148994486272[/video]

Considerably less than 100%, I thought.(That was the BBC tweet!)

 

[neteditor]

[video=twitter;831454212064215040]https://twitter.com/TaraCoxCN/status/831454212064215040[/video]

 

[ColourPurple]

Alyce
Going back to this discussion, I don't understand why anyone thought they weren't handling the conveyancing of the flat in Newcastle, because Mr Penn gave evidence about how he was doing so, and there's no other reason for consulting a solicitor about that flat except to do the conveyancing. You brought his evidence up again in Thread 4:
Timothy Penn, a solicitor at Penn Sassoly solicitors in Royston, will now be giving evidence.

He said: “Helen was introduced to me because she needed a solicitor for the sale of a flat.

“On April 5 she came into my office for an appointment. She said to me that I would need her partner’s ID at some point.

“She said the flat had been an investment property, it was surplus to her requirements she was selling it to realise the capital. It was a very routine conveyancing transaction as far as we were concerned.

“The flat was in Gateshead, the asking price was £185,000. The purpose of the meeting was an opportunity to meet the client which we always wish to do, and to get some basic instructions from her in regard to the property and the circumstances of the sale.

“That was the first and only time I met Helen Bailey. My records showed that Helen was due to come into the office to see me on April 11, 2016, but my office was called and we heard that she would not be coming in because she was unwell.

A few days later Stewart came in with some documents Helen was due to be bringing in but wasn’t able to.

“He came back and collected the surplus documents about a week later. We copied his ID.

“He gave the air of someone who was in a little bit of a hurry, but apart from that there was nothing untoward really.”

Of course that still leaves the question of why she was searching for a conveyancer when she already had one, even if she had thoughts about the Royston house - which was their joint property, wasn't it?

I think the question asking for recommendations was April the 1st so it would fit in with her being recommended this solicitor. I wasn't sure of the dates before. This part is interesting though. It mentions IS going in with the docs a few days after the 11th not later the same day

That was the first and only time I met Helen Bailey. My records showed that Helen was due to come into the office to see me on April 11, 2016, but my office was called and we heard that she would not be coming in because she was unwell.

A few days later Stewart came in with some documents Helen was due to be bringing in but wasn’t able to.

“He came back and collected the surplus documents about a week later. We copied his ID.

 

[JudgeJudi]

What is the point of Mrs Richards. Total waste of time.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Attention drawn by dog

That’s the end of Mrs Richard’s evidence. A statement will now be read from Catherine Richards, her daughter. In the statement, Catherine said: “I believe the day I saw Helen Bailey was Monday April 11, 2016. “I remember that day, I had been at college during the morning, between 8am and 12.40pm. “I got home around 1.20pm. At 4pm I left home to go to work. “Between 1.20pm and 4pm, I was looking out of the front window. “I saw a lady walking past the window, it was her dog that first drew my attention to her. “My mum said that was the lady who lived round the corner and that she was an author. “She was wearing a dark coloured coat and trousers. She was walking away from the main road. “At the closest, the lady was about 10 metres away.”

 

[Alyce]

Attention drawn by dog

That’s the end of Mrs Richard’s evidence. A statement will now be read from Catherine Richards, her daughter. In the statement, Catherine said: “I believe the day I saw Helen Bailey was Monday April 11, 2016. “I remember that day, I had been at college during the morning, between 8am and 12.40pm. “I got home around 1.20pm. At 4pm I left home to go to work. “Between 1.20pm and 4pm, I was looking out of the front window. “I saw a lady walking past the window, it was her dog that first drew my attention to her. “My mum said that was the lady who lived round the corner and that she was an author. “She was wearing a dark coloured coat and trousers. She was walking away from the main road. “At the closest, the lady was about 10 metres away.”


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

 

[Alyce]

Mrs Richards
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.

Catherine Richards
Monday April 11, 2016. “I remember that day, I had been at college

 

[cottonweaver]

States opening 5 weeks ago :

The prosecution claim Stewart allegedly murdered Ms Bailey, “probably by suffocation” between 10.51am and 2.30pm

 

[JudgeJudi]

Second statement

In a second statement, Catherine Richards told police: “On Sunday April 10 my mum had gone bell ringing in the morning and when she came home we chatted. “I needed to go to Staples to get revision supplies. We went to Pets at Home, then we went to see my nan. “We then came home for dinner. It was a muggy day.”

 

[JudgeJudi]

"bell ringing". This makes me think of Midsomer Murders.

 

[Alyce]

Second statement

In a second statement, Catherine Richards told police: “On Sunday April 10 my mum had gone bell ringing in the morning and when she came home we chatted. “I needed to go to Staples to get revision supplies. We went to Pets at Home, then we went to see my nan. “We then came home for dinner. It was a muggy day.”


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

 

[Alyce]

Hadn't seen dog walker since

“I have a routine every Monday, I get the train to Cambridge at 8.07am and would be home by 1.15pm. “I was sitting on the chair when I saw the lady [Helen] outside. “I can’t be sure of the exact time I saw Helen. “I saw her for 20/30 seconds as she walked down the road. I first noticed a really cute dog. “The lady was wearing dark colours, brown and blacks. She had a coat without a hood. “I haven’t seen the lady since this date, and we were aware she was missing. “We pay attention to dog walkers outside but we haven’t seen her since. “Neither the dog nor the lady seemed rushed or stressed, they just walked past and I thought nothing more about it.” There will now be an early break until 11.20am.


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

 

[LozDa]

Wouldn't 11 April still be part of college holiday for Easter? Even Mrs Richards said: [FONT=&quot] "I was away on holiday until the evening of April 8 and the Tuesday 12 my daughter was back at college."

So she went back on 12th? So wasn't at college on the 11th as suggested? [/FONT]

Also... I just looked at the term dates of my local college for this year:

31 March 2017 - Spring Term ends for students
18 April 2017 - Beginning of Summer Term for all students

 

[TheRisenBishop]

Both statement's from the mother and daughter contradict each other. Either the daughter was at college on the 11th or she wasn't. She said she was mother said she wasn't. How hard can it be to verify? This is sloppy obfuscation from the defence!

 

[hunkerdown]

I can only imagine in a place like Royston there must be a number of lady dog walkers with small dogs!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

[video=twitter;831456403739009024]https://twitter.com/BBCNicola/status/831456403739009024[/video]

 

[neteditor]

Witnesses are notoriously unreliable - and here we see the proof of it.

 

[Squamous]

I can imagine Boris was distinctive (and gorgeous!) but we seem to be not quite sure what day or time we're talking about, and the mother and daughter aren't sure either!

 

[LozDa]

Both statement's from the mother and daughter contradict each other. Either the daughter was at college on the 11th or she wasn't. She said she was mother said she wasn't. How hard can it be to verify? This is sloppy obfuscation from the defence!

Sloppy yet intentional, I would wager.

 

[cottonweaver]

Both statement's from the mother and daughter contradict each other. Either the daughter was at college on the 11th or she wasn't. She said she was mother said she wasn't. How hard can it be to verify? This is sloppy obfuscation from the defence!

pity there's no chance to cross examine as for the daughter we only have a written statement.