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

[neteditor]

Wouldn't 11 April still be part of college holiday for Easter? Even Mrs Richards said: [FONT=&amp] "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

Those dates would move around Easter though? IIRC that was end of March last year and is weekend of 8/9 April this year so the holiday dates would be at least a week later this year than last?

 

[TheRisenBishop]

Sloppy yet intentional, I would wager.

Yup, that was inherent in my scorn!

 

[neteditor]

I guess the defence are trying to prove HB was not drugged that morning/afternoon.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

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

Exactly CW, rather convenient don't ya think? Feckin serpents!

 

[JudgeJudi]

Speaking of little Boris:

 

[LozDa]

Those dates would move around Easter though? IIRC that was end of March last year and is weekend of 8/9 April this year so the holiday dates would be at least a week later this year than last?

Yes, but it's always unlikely the students go back on the very first Monday after a holiday, due to teacher training, or inset day, or whatever it's referred to as.

I'm not saying this is definite, but her mother seemed to say she was back on the Tuesday and that she wasn't at college and the daughter said she was at college. A quick check of the term times would have clarified for them both.

It's just muddying the waters - which is exactly the defence's game, I suspect. As they don't have another leg to stand on.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

I guess the defence are trying to prove HB was not drugged that morning/afternoon.

Not to "prove" but rather to cast a reasonable doubt...

 

[neteditor]

Not to "prove" but rather to cast a reasonable doubt...

Of course, thank you, sloppy on my part.

 

[JudgeJudi]

These are just lovely.

 

[neteditor]

Oh my... would it be going too far to rush out and get a little tiny dachsy in memory of Boris?

 

[cottonweaver]

had a check back to see what he says in his last version, last week, when he took to the stand

At 9.04am there was a call from the home landline to the solicitors, the jurors are told. Stewart said Helen made this call.
Stewart: “Our mobiles were all on the EE network.”
Between 9.10am and 9.28am, there are other searches on Helen’s iPad relating to the dog and Brocket Hall.
Stewart said Boris was usually walked by both him and Helen after breakfast.
“On this particular morning, I’m 99 per cent sure Boris didn’t get a walk.
“I was in bed until a bit later, I came back downstairs.”
Defence barrister Simon Russell Flint: “Did you come downstairs with murderous intent, intending to kill Helen or cause her serious harm?”
Stewart: “No”.

Between 10.14am and 10.45am, there are more iPad searches, another one on Brocket Hall.
At 10.58am, the last search on Helen’s iPad relates to wedding planners on Twitter, the court is told.
Defence barrister Simon Russell Flint: “That’s when the internet activity stops, did you kill her at that time?”
Stewart: “No”.
“Did you creep up behind her on her iPad and smother her? Did you put a pillow on top of her, wrap her in a duvet and drag her down to the cess pit?”
Stewart: “No”.
Mr Russell Flint: “Did you do anything to harm her at all?”
Stewart: “No”.

naturally he had other versions previously

 

[ColourPurple]

Oh my... would it be going too far to rush out and get a little tiny dachsy in memory of Boris?

LOL a real one? Do it!!!

 

[TheRisenBishop]

Of course, thank you, sloppy on my part.

Hehe...not as sloppy as this defence. :jail:

 

[cottonweaver]

Oh my... would it be going too far to rush out and get a little tiny dachsy in memory of Boris?

LOL- yes, you can't even get a goldfish on impulse!

 

[scandinavian girl]

Oh my... would it be going too far to rush out and get a little tiny dachsy in memory of Boris?

Yes....bcs I am suddenly sitting here sayin No scandigirl you are NOT having a dachspuppy and that is final.

 

[Alyce]

Wouldn't 11 April still be part of college holiday for Easter? Even Mrs Richards said: [FONT="] "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

Here's some dates for a Cambridgeshire College for 2016 - which bears out what you say Loz....an inset day ( training ) on April 11




Summer term 2016
Training Day Monday 11 April 2016
Summer Term Tuesday 12 April


http://www.abbeycollege.cambs.sch.uk/index.php/weekly-updates/term-dates-2015-16-2016-17

 

[neteditor]

hahahaha - hands up everyone currently telling themselves NO to a new puppy?

:seeya:

 

[LozDa]

Oh my... would it be going too far to rush out and get a little tiny dachsy in memory of Boris?

It's an odd thing you mention that... we currently have 4 large dogs (we are lunatics :blushing but two of ours are very old (both 14). We have made a recent decision that when they leave us, we would get one small dog to fill the gap somewhat. After having been invested in this case and having seen Boris' lovely face throughout, I suggested a dachshund to my partner. It's been the only small dog we've both agreed on and I have been planning, should it go ahead in future years, to call him Boris, just as a small memorial that only us lot know the meaning of.

 

[neteditor]

My uncle had a mini longhaired dachs when I was a teenager and such a sweetie she was... just make sure to always have on a lead because they b*gger off down rabbit holes like a flash!

 

[TheRisenBishop]

I meant to say when we were discussing about the cleaner supposedly breaking the hare ornament and IS exhorting Helen to sack her that my view is he broke the ornament and blamed the cleaner.

He wouldn't have wanted third parties around interfering or adding unknown variables to his evil plan. Just thought I'd throw it in there whilst we are on a break.