GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #8

[Tortoise]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-trial-12606434

12:10
Break extended

The break has been extended until 1.30pm.

And then it will be a 5 minute witness. You can bet on it.

 

[neteditor]

In that case, I'm off to make some lunch and have the wee I've been holding in for an hour.

TMI? I never can tell.

:laughing:

:happydance:

I'm going to do the same... make it two hours

 

[flightpath]

Interested Farmer says he sold the cafe last year. Found review on trip advisor 23 April saying catering equipment in cafe for sale. So you'd remember date if you were in midst of selling up?!!

 

[Duchy]

And then it will be a 5 minute witness. You can bet on it.

and then court will resume tomorrow.

 

[Tortoise]

:happydance:

I'm going to do the same... make it two hours

Reminds me of my cat when she came home from the vets after her 3 day hospitalisation. She had obviously been crossing her legs since her operation and went and sat in her litter tray for 15 minutes. No kidding, I tried not to laugh and cause her any blushes.

 

[Squamous]

And then it will be a 5 minute witness. You can bet on it.

Probably someone who thinks they saw Helen in May 2016. But it could have been 2015. Or 2014. And might have been a man.

 

[ZaZara]

There's a huge hole in your case... how did Nick & Joe know she'd run away before IS did (he didn't invent the note until the next day.

Otherwise I'd say your case is almost as water tight as the defence's :happydance:

Nick and Joe must have been watching from outside the house in a Range Rover. In fact, I'm pretty sure they gave her the Range Rover to drive down Charlotte Street and back before she left on the train.

Nick, Joe and HB are all avid dog walkers. HB confided in them and told them she needed time and space for herself. This happened a few weeks before April 11. They offered her the car and promised to keep an eye on IS. Which they did with dedication.

Nick and Joe must have been worried that they were going to be interrogated when they were presented at court, but that did not happen. Prosecutor Trimmer is determined not to let IS off the hook.

:juggle:

Spinning yarns becomes amazingly easy once you get the hang of it.
There remains of course the discovery of the bodies in the cesspit, but this is all due to a postmodern misinterpretation of otherwise undeniable facts. Once we all agree that it did not happen, it did not happen. HB and Boris will be found with the dark car, and as long as that car has not been found, HB is driving it.

And IS still gets 30 years, behind bars.

IMHO this is a far happier ending for all involved.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

My experience was similar to yours, flightpath. I was one of the ones who try to take control! And there were some startling episodes such as one juror asking whether we should find one of the witnesses guilty or not guilty. But none of the cases I was in on, were as long or as dramatically obvious as this one, and I expect the judge's direction to help them. Plus we were all encouraged by their intelligent question on the finances.

Just got back from the dentist, fearing I might have missed a crucial witness...nevertheless there's some really useful comment here, thank you all. I am agog to hear what the police computer expert is, or may be, being recalled for.

BIB: Whilst I think everything you've said here would resonate with those who have served on a jury you've hit the nail on the head about how obvious this case is.

By the time both defence and prosecution have given closing arguments and the Judge has summed up and directed the jury it will be easy for them to find him guilty.

Unless they accept the unseen Nick and Joe exist they have to find him guilty. Trimmer will hammer home to the jury what constitutes a reasonable doubt and how IS's does not come anywhere near to meeting the test.

 

[icemaiden65]

Fascinating case. I hope the jury are all intelligent enough to cut through the myriad diversionary tactics of the abduction fantasy. But I'm sorry to say you can never tell which way it will go despite what we think. Some jurors may just think there is enough reasonable doubt .... The case I was a juror on there was a fellow juror who halfway through the deliberation asked the rest of us "what does this mean?" . It was in fact the name of one of the three Defendants! English wasn't her first language but I was shocked. And some jurors take a back seat and simply go with the majority whilst others refuse to acknowledge facts. And there will be one or two who try to take control. Just my halfpenny Of experience! I am hoping IS gets 30 years myself!

You put into words exactly my fears. My OH (poor sod) was elected as Foreman of the jury on a case a few years ago- no-one else wanted the poisened chalice and they all ganged up on him! Only the other day said for me not to rely on the verdict going as I so hope it will (GUILTY M'LUD!). Two members of the jury just wanted to get home and do the supermarket shopping for the weekend. He said it was like trying to herd cats to keep them focused when they retired to deliberate.

 

[LozDa]

BIB: Whilst I think everything you've said here would resonate with those who have served on a jury you've hit the nail on the head about how obvious this case is.

By the time both defence and prosecution have given closing arguments and the Judge has summed up and directed the jury it will be easy for them to find him guilty.

Unless they accept the unseen Nick and Joe exist they have to find him guilty. Trimmer will hammer home to the jury what constitutes a reasonable doubt and how IS's does not come anywhere near to meeting the test.

BIB: RB, we have seen Nick and Joe, remember

As always, I agree with everything you've said.

 

[icemaiden65]

:happydance:

I'm going to do the same... make it two hours

Are you a human bean or a camel?

 

[LozDa]

Are you a human bean or a camel?

Leaking Bean?

 

[Cherwell]

I really don't think there's anything to worry about in this case. Observers have mentioned that the jury don't seem to be buying IS's stories.

 

[LozDa]

I really don't think there's anything to worry about in this case. Observers have mentioned that the jury don't seem to be buying IS's stories.

Also, I should think that the other cases that have been mentioned have not been quite so involved or, sorry to say, 'juicy' as this one. I can well imagine someone wanting to get home to do their shopping whilst on the jury for a petty theft or a drug-related or bog-standard crime, for example. I should imagine, in this sort of case that things are taken very seriously and the decisions are made thoughtfully and with full attention.

One would hope, anyway.

 

[Tortoise]

I really don't think there's anything to worry about in this case. Observers have mentioned that the jury don't seem to be buying IS's stories.

Well there are enough of us here to do a quick straw poll.

If anyone here thinks IS has raised reasonable doubt please thank my post.

Go on, don't be shy!

 

[Tortoise]

Now please thank this post if you would vote guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

BIB: RB, we have seen Nick and Joe, remember

As always, I agree with everything you've said.

LOL!!! How could I ever forget? Great moment will stay with me forever! Comedy gold if it wasn't so bloody tragic.

 

[T41]

It seems ironic that the court can't ban the "devout Christian".I suppose she'd have to do something clearly illegal.

i think best she's there and time and energy occupied that way than at home for her mind to come up with perceived injustices and retaliations? Mental health care is dire here. Wish it weren't and people get the support they need.

 

[icemaiden65]

Also, I should think that the other cases that have been mentioned have not been quite so involved or, sorry to say, 'juicy' as this one. I can well imagine someone wanting to get home to do their shopping whilst on the jury for a petty theft or a drug-related or bog-standard crime, for example. I should imagine, in this sort of case that things are taken very seriously and the decisions are made thoughtfully and with full attention.

One would hope, anyway.

It was attempted murder I referred to - so possibly thought of as just an every day run of the mill sort of case. It still doesn't excuse folk wanting to just dump and run.

 

[Cherwell]

So do we think it's the prosecution recalling the computer expert? Could there be some new evidence? That might explain the later start, as the judge would have to give permission.