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

[flightpath]

Maybe we could hire Joe and Nick to bump him off if he gets off.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I hope we have somebody in court today because I would like to have a reading of his expressions when both Trimmer and Slimeball were giving their closing statements. I expect zilch reaction to Trimmer and a smugness for Slimeball.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

I want you to wear them WHILE she is eating them and live blogged too

Lol, there's an offer you don't get every day! anic:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Maybe we could hire Joe and Nick to bump him off if he gets off.

I know of a good cess pit in Royston!

 

[snoopydog]

I might just eat the stilettos whatever, i'm starving - woof


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZaZara]

“You might say ‘The Joe and Nick story, interesting, but how can we prove it’s true?’

“It isn’t for Mr Stewart to have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, to make us sure.

That's it about Joe and Nick. IMHO it is almost as if even the Defense wants the jury to forget about them.
Because RF would run into trouble if he went with the NiJo story and had to describe the rest of IS' behaviour on Monday.
But then, why did he allow IS to take the stand with the tale of Joe and Nick at all?

Wasting out precious lives with details he wasn't going to use in his defense anyway? Or was it just a gift to the Prosecution? (Not intended as such, but that is how it turned out?)

Members of the Jury, most of what my client told you was a collection of balderdash, but never mind, because they loved each other dearly, please read the book, and by the way, he had enough money of his own and hers as well.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

 

[neteditor]

That's it about Joe and Nick. IMHO it is almost as if even the Defense wants the jury to forget about them.
Because RF would run into trouble if he went with the NiJo story and had to describe the rest of IS' behaviour on Monday.
But then, why did he allow IS to take the stand with the tale of Joe and Nick at all?

Wasting out precious lives with details he wasn't going to use in his defense anyway? Or was it just a gift to the Prosecution? (Not intended as such, but that is how it turned out?)

Members of the Jury, most of what my client told you was a collection of balderdash, but never mind, because they loved each other dearly, please read the book, and by the way, he had enough money of his own and hers as well.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

He's not finished yet though is he?

 

[icemaiden65]

Beyond reasonable doubt. Yes. Not beyond ANY doubt, and surely Strimmer has reduced his -and-bull story to a pile of reeking silage.

Cherwell, I love you! Maybe I'm worrying too much. x

 

[flightpath]

Jury please remember the zoplicone wasn't self administered and however much IS seemed the perfect man for HB he is a self confessed liar and you are far more likely to be murdered by someone close to you than a stranger. Professions of love on either or both sides notwithstanding. Fact.

 

[ColourPurple]

[h=3]'How can the murder of Helen be financially motivated if Stewart only needed to wait a couple of months and he could have been £1.5million or so better off?'[/h][FONT=&quot]“OMG[/FONT] Just catching up and am so annoyed that the defence have been able to use that complete lie.

The insurance policy Helen had meant he'd be no better off waiting till they were married. How are they allowed to pretend that he'd be better off?

 

[Squamous]

Just catching up but I'm really ticked that Russell-Flint can't bring himself to mention Nick and Joe!

 

[snoopydog]

[h=3]'How can the murder of Helen be financially motivated if Stewart only needed to wait a couple of months and he could have been £1.5million or so better off?'[/h][FONT=&quot]“OMG[/FONT] Just catching up and am so annoyed that the defence have been able to use that complete lie.

The insurance policy Helen had meant he'd be no better off waiting till they were married. How are they allowed to pretend that he'd be better off?

Agree. This should be challenged. It's clearly a load of mince


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherwell]

'How can the murder of Helen be financially motivated if Stewart only needed to wait a couple of months and he could have been £1.5million or so better off?'

Only if she died!

Also Strimmer cornered IS into admitting that the only person who could have killed Helen apart from NiJo is himself.
And he did a good job of demolishing the NiJo story.

 

[TheRisenBishop]

Just catching up but I'm really ticked that Russell-Flint can't bring himself to mention Nick and Joe!

Seriously though, would you?! I know barristers are thick-skinned but :shame::deadhorse:

 

[Florrie]

Feel a bit sorry for RF, he has no option but to repeat the bollocks that IS has said. He MUST be aware that he is guilty but to defend someone I guess you have to put those personal feelings aside. It not a job I could do.

Trimmer meanwhile has played an absolute blinder for the prosecution. From 12 jurors there can be a majority verdict, Jeremy Bamber (another psychopath or possibly a sociopath) was convicted on a 10-2 majority.

IS is going to prison, there is no way they are going to acquit him based upon what has been said. So he has no history of violence. He didn't need to apply much violence or confront Helen to kill her, rather he drugged her and overpowered her as she was semi conscious/unconscious.

Trimmer thinks Boris went willingly into the cesspit....again no violence needed. Just chuck a dog toy down there and watch the rabbiter jump down the hole. I bet once the lid was replaced no barks would have been heard. Poor Boris.

I know juries can be unpredictable but they do usually get it right, even if on a majority vote.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Let us remind ourselves that our poll shows SIXTY of us would vote guilty and ZERO would vote not guilty.

Translate that to the jury. It's five juries.

There is usually at least one poster (keeping it polite) that pops up in these threads and argues reasonable doubt.

Not one. No one.

 

[ZaZara]

He's not finished yet though is he?

Is he or isn't he?
Today was the day for the closing speeches, there is no mention that RF will continue tomorrow.

 

[Tortoise]

Is he or isn't he?
Today was the day for the closing speeches, there is no mention that RF will continue tomorrow.

I don't think he's finished.

 

[LozDa]

Let us remind ourselves that our poll shows SIXTY of us would vote guilty and ZERO would vote not guilty.

Translate that to the jury. It's five juries.

There is usually at least one poster (keeping it polite) that pops up in these threads and argues reasonable doubt.

Not one. No one.

In the short time I've been on this website and involved in other cases, this is nothing short of miraculous in itself. There's always a devils advocate, it seems. Even when it seems ridiculously unlikely.

This, plus the fact that his story is nothing short of ridiculous, is making me certain that he will be found guilty without much trouble.

 

[Tortoise]

Yep, I mean they must have decided as soon as they witnessed him telling his fable. It's not like a barrister is going to change their minds over what they believed then.