Duchy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 3
Oh for goodness sake lol.
GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #8
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
- Status
Oh for goodness sake lol.
flightpath
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 0
And so it must be true!
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Stewarts account is that they had to do some decoration, and the cost wa about £4,000, so why a new standing order? Why a repetition every month of £4,000? Why is he doing that? When those two attempts fail, the final one is successful, one to alter an existing standing order. But why would Helen be persistently trying to change this to £4,000?
Money would have made Stewart 'confortable'
The defendant has to plan for whats happening. What is going to happen if he kills Helen. Its going to be a while, probably months, before he can touch her money. So a relatively modest change to a standing order is going to go unnoticed, hes going to be comfortable until the whole thing has settled down. Its about little over twice than he was receiving ordinarily, and there is no explanation for it. It was not to pay for the decoration.
Stewart 'tripped up' by chair lie - prosecutor
(Tara error - it's a repeat of preceding para)
Bank account changes made on on Stewart's computer
He flatly denies that he altered Helens Barclays account, and that Helen must have done it. But hes asleep in the chair, in front of the computer. So has she decided to do the decorations and changed the standing order sitting on his lap, on his computer? The changes to the standing order are made on his computer, not hers. His windows 10 machine. When that windows 10 machine is examined, the browsing history that would have showed Barclays access is gone. There comes a limit to the idea of coincidence, doesnt there? The activity logs in the computer have disappeared as well. It may be that Windows 10 has disposed of the activity itself. A horrible coincidence if thats the case. Of course you know Stewart is a computer engineer, he knows about computers.
Money would have made Stewart 'confortable'
The defendant has to plan for whats happening. What is going to happen if he kills Helen. Its going to be a while, probably months, before he can touch her money. So a relatively modest change to a standing order is going to go unnoticed, hes going to be comfortable until the whole thing has settled down. Its about little over twice than he was receiving ordinarily, and there is no explanation for it. It was not to pay for the decoration.
Stewart 'tripped up' by chair lie - prosecutor
(Tara error - it's a repeat of preceding para)
Bank account changes made on on Stewart's computer
He flatly denies that he altered Helens Barclays account, and that Helen must have done it. But hes asleep in the chair, in front of the computer. So has she decided to do the decorations and changed the standing order sitting on his lap, on his computer? The changes to the standing order are made on his computer, not hers. His windows 10 machine. When that windows 10 machine is examined, the browsing history that would have showed Barclays access is gone. There comes a limit to the idea of coincidence, doesnt there? The activity logs in the computer have disappeared as well. It may be that Windows 10 has disposed of the activity itself. A horrible coincidence if thats the case. Of course you know Stewart is a computer engineer, he knows about computers.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Sightings of Helen Bailey 'wrong' - Crown
The Crown say the sightings of Helen are inaccurate, or wrong. The first witness was of dog Helen walking, and there is that gap in her internet activity which would give time for Helen to walk the dog. There may have been an occasion when she went walking the dog. That was one of the things she did in the early part of the morning.
The second witness is a group, the mother and daughter, and we were not able to test what the daughter had to say. That has the sighting of the dog walking later in the day. People looking through net curtains for a short space of time...the Crown say this sighting of Helen is wrong. The rest of the evidence demonstrates that this defendant murdered Helen. All of the other evidence will lead you this conclusion at pretty much that time [of the sighting]. If thats right, then this sighting must be wrong.
No doubt well meaning people who thought theyd seen Helen were looking to help police to find her. But they were wrong. The third witness was well meaning, well intentioned, but wrong. She first thought her sighting of Helen was 11am, then 4pm in the afternoon. She says she used the car on this day because it was raining. At 3pm thereabouts we see that this defendant was at Royston waste disposal site, it was not raining. The woman said she couldnt remember the last time she had driven to Royston. Well meaning, but wrong.
And finally Mr Farmer, who says he saw Helen driving in Broadstairs. In the middle of April if the defendant is right, Nick and Joe have Helen in their clutches and theyre trying to extract information from her worth half a million pounds. Is she going to be seen in Broadstairs, in a large black Range Rover, driving it when she didnt like driving much, on her own, yards from her own house [in Broadstairs]. Had the kidnappers just let her go? The word absurd springs to mind. This is activity presented to you to muddy the waters. They do not demonstrate that Helen was alive and well late afternoon in the middle of April. Mr Farmer doesnt know if this [sighting of Helen] is March, April or May.
There will now be a short break until 12noon.
The Crown say the sightings of Helen are inaccurate, or wrong. The first witness was of dog Helen walking, and there is that gap in her internet activity which would give time for Helen to walk the dog. There may have been an occasion when she went walking the dog. That was one of the things she did in the early part of the morning.
The second witness is a group, the mother and daughter, and we were not able to test what the daughter had to say. That has the sighting of the dog walking later in the day. People looking through net curtains for a short space of time...the Crown say this sighting of Helen is wrong. The rest of the evidence demonstrates that this defendant murdered Helen. All of the other evidence will lead you this conclusion at pretty much that time [of the sighting]. If thats right, then this sighting must be wrong.
No doubt well meaning people who thought theyd seen Helen were looking to help police to find her. But they were wrong. The third witness was well meaning, well intentioned, but wrong. She first thought her sighting of Helen was 11am, then 4pm in the afternoon. She says she used the car on this day because it was raining. At 3pm thereabouts we see that this defendant was at Royston waste disposal site, it was not raining. The woman said she couldnt remember the last time she had driven to Royston. Well meaning, but wrong.
And finally Mr Farmer, who says he saw Helen driving in Broadstairs. In the middle of April if the defendant is right, Nick and Joe have Helen in their clutches and theyre trying to extract information from her worth half a million pounds. Is she going to be seen in Broadstairs, in a large black Range Rover, driving it when she didnt like driving much, on her own, yards from her own house [in Broadstairs]. Had the kidnappers just let her go? The word absurd springs to mind. This is activity presented to you to muddy the waters. They do not demonstrate that Helen was alive and well late afternoon in the middle of April. Mr Farmer doesnt know if this [sighting of Helen] is March, April or May.
There will now be a short break until 12noon.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
This is called The Love Whisperer and is all over the internet. My guess it was put out to impress. I doubt whether the heartless murderer could produce a heartfelt poem if he tried so he had to steal it from somebody else.
I do appreciate people do use already published material like this. I so dislike this guy that I feel he put that out as a "come on" to some sad and lonely widow to grasp and run with - and Helen did.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Case back on.
Trip to tip 'really significant'
Stuart Trimmer continues: The tip is really significant. Why the second time, why visit again on April 13? On April 11, theres a lot of activity at this tip, a lot of cars moving about and people moving around. Fortunately for us we have camera shots clearly showing this defendant carting a box which appears to have a white object in it up the stairs, and then also carrying a separate box later on up the stairs. He has a dilemma here, why the second visit on Wednesday April 13? Whats the purpose of that? The Crown suggest that if at the desk where Helen was, she had become unconscious or sleepy, and has been without much mess, suffocated there, its a matter of two minutes work taking her body out round the corner, while sliding her body on the duvet. Its reasonably hidden from your neighbours there. Are there her body fluids on that duvet? Had she vomited? Something you wouldnt want to leave behind? What about the pillow, was that put over her face?
Prosecutors says 'no doubt' Stewart was a liar
This is all in his mind, and there is no doubt that Stewart is a liar. The words that he said, from the first time he spoke about it on April 12 to his sons, right until there was a change in November when he spoke to his solicitors, he ran with lie number one. Lie number one had a number of assets to it that were very important. It wasnt a simple white lie, this is a very black lie, a wicked lie, a cruel lie. To his sons, to his girlfriends brother who sits behind me, he spins the lie. To everybody he comes across, to policeman of all ranks to the operator on the phone when he calls, to a host of community workers, to all the dog walkers, to all those good-hearted people who wanted to find Helen Bailey, he lies. He leads them to believe Helen had just gone, gone to Broadstairs, that she wanted space and didnt wanted to be contacted. Careful and clever, isnt it?
Stewart acted out story
The impression that he left was that there was some difficulty and Helen wanted to be on her own. Wanted to be on her own where her first husband and her spent some time. Stewart acted this thing out, and he laid it on his face.
Dog had to go
The dog has got to go. If Helens gone, the dog has got to go. There is no way unless shed made arrangements, that Helen would go without the dog. If lie number one is going to work the dog has to go. That perfectly shortly and cruelly is why that dog may been lured down that pit with a toy. Somehow, the dog had to go. It could not stay.*
Kidnappers Nick and Joe 'don't exist' - jury told
Anybody with an ounce of common decency, if there had been a kidnapping and if Joe and Nick had taken Helen away to sort out a problem, what would you do? When you got police on the phone, speak to a senior officer. I really must deal with this, is there any chance you could send a detective round to speak to me? Is this defendant stupid? Does he not understand life? Of course he does. When you say it to police are they going to advertise the fact it was a kidnapping? Clearly not. Nick are Joe dont exist. They are a much later invention, invented sometime after his arrest and when he spoke to his solicitor.
Trip to tip 'really significant'
Stuart Trimmer continues: The tip is really significant. Why the second time, why visit again on April 13? On April 11, theres a lot of activity at this tip, a lot of cars moving about and people moving around. Fortunately for us we have camera shots clearly showing this defendant carting a box which appears to have a white object in it up the stairs, and then also carrying a separate box later on up the stairs. He has a dilemma here, why the second visit on Wednesday April 13? Whats the purpose of that? The Crown suggest that if at the desk where Helen was, she had become unconscious or sleepy, and has been without much mess, suffocated there, its a matter of two minutes work taking her body out round the corner, while sliding her body on the duvet. Its reasonably hidden from your neighbours there. Are there her body fluids on that duvet? Had she vomited? Something you wouldnt want to leave behind? What about the pillow, was that put over her face?
Prosecutors says 'no doubt' Stewart was a liar
This is all in his mind, and there is no doubt that Stewart is a liar. The words that he said, from the first time he spoke about it on April 12 to his sons, right until there was a change in November when he spoke to his solicitors, he ran with lie number one. Lie number one had a number of assets to it that were very important. It wasnt a simple white lie, this is a very black lie, a wicked lie, a cruel lie. To his sons, to his girlfriends brother who sits behind me, he spins the lie. To everybody he comes across, to policeman of all ranks to the operator on the phone when he calls, to a host of community workers, to all the dog walkers, to all those good-hearted people who wanted to find Helen Bailey, he lies. He leads them to believe Helen had just gone, gone to Broadstairs, that she wanted space and didnt wanted to be contacted. Careful and clever, isnt it?
Stewart acted out story
The impression that he left was that there was some difficulty and Helen wanted to be on her own. Wanted to be on her own where her first husband and her spent some time. Stewart acted this thing out, and he laid it on his face.
Dog had to go
The dog has got to go. If Helens gone, the dog has got to go. There is no way unless shed made arrangements, that Helen would go without the dog. If lie number one is going to work the dog has to go. That perfectly shortly and cruelly is why that dog may been lured down that pit with a toy. Somehow, the dog had to go. It could not stay.*
Kidnappers Nick and Joe 'don't exist' - jury told
Anybody with an ounce of common decency, if there had been a kidnapping and if Joe and Nick had taken Helen away to sort out a problem, what would you do? When you got police on the phone, speak to a senior officer. I really must deal with this, is there any chance you could send a detective round to speak to me? Is this defendant stupid? Does he not understand life? Of course he does. When you say it to police are they going to advertise the fact it was a kidnapping? Clearly not. Nick are Joe dont exist. They are a much later invention, invented sometime after his arrest and when he spoke to his solicitor.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Account was 'woolly at the edges'
What dispute was there out there that was worth killing for? Worth killing Helen Bailey for? What were they after? A piece of paper or file? The beauty of this invented tale is that its woolly at the edges.
Helen Bailey gave up dispute over money owed to husband
John Sinfield [Helens former husband] may have had a complicated life, and complicated business dealings, but that stopped when he died years ago and it had never risen its head again since. There appeared to be some loose end at the end of his business where he was owed money, his estate was owed money, not the other way around. So if anyone was going to go chasing it would have been his estate chasing a small sum of money, much less than £100,000. The unchallenged evidence was that Helen Bailey gave up this dispute because the lawyers were costing too much. Thats the sea around where this defendant had woven this tale. This tale doesnt see the light of day until December 13.
Prosecutor says Stewart a 'full blown liar'
You cant bring on tears very easily. What was happening here was a man [Stewart] who was apparently sad, and to some people he laid that on thickly. The note. It simply didnt exist, but its purpose was important. Without it you wouldnt have a focus for the tale. But the note had gone missing. But it must go, because if it stayed and was handwritten the first thing people would be thinking of doing would be looking at it. Youre asked to trust this mans word that Nick and Joe existed, and he is without doubt, a full blown liar.
Depths of the lying is 'significant' court hears
Police found Stewart odd. Stewart is telling you, that the real truth is that these people have kidnapped Helen. But in these [police] interviews he was calm, and in no sense concerned. No sense saying get out there and find her. In the interview Stewart said he had this memory of Helen saying goodbye to him, but its then suggested Helen was out walking the dog. You cant have it both ways. The depths of the lying is significant.
Helen Bailey's killing 'brought forward'
The important thing in his mind is the reason he had to do away with Helen, and her killing was brought forward because she was beginning to be aware of the fact that she was being drugged. He saw the Mumsnet internet searches, and in his head thats a significant thing. Mr Trimmer points out that in Stewarts police interview he mentioned Helen was into forums, like Mumsnet and things like that. Why did that pop into his head? Mr Trimmer asks the jury.
What dispute was there out there that was worth killing for? Worth killing Helen Bailey for? What were they after? A piece of paper or file? The beauty of this invented tale is that its woolly at the edges.
Helen Bailey gave up dispute over money owed to husband
John Sinfield [Helens former husband] may have had a complicated life, and complicated business dealings, but that stopped when he died years ago and it had never risen its head again since. There appeared to be some loose end at the end of his business where he was owed money, his estate was owed money, not the other way around. So if anyone was going to go chasing it would have been his estate chasing a small sum of money, much less than £100,000. The unchallenged evidence was that Helen Bailey gave up this dispute because the lawyers were costing too much. Thats the sea around where this defendant had woven this tale. This tale doesnt see the light of day until December 13.
Prosecutor says Stewart a 'full blown liar'
You cant bring on tears very easily. What was happening here was a man [Stewart] who was apparently sad, and to some people he laid that on thickly. The note. It simply didnt exist, but its purpose was important. Without it you wouldnt have a focus for the tale. But the note had gone missing. But it must go, because if it stayed and was handwritten the first thing people would be thinking of doing would be looking at it. Youre asked to trust this mans word that Nick and Joe existed, and he is without doubt, a full blown liar.
Depths of the lying is 'significant' court hears
Police found Stewart odd. Stewart is telling you, that the real truth is that these people have kidnapped Helen. But in these [police] interviews he was calm, and in no sense concerned. No sense saying get out there and find her. In the interview Stewart said he had this memory of Helen saying goodbye to him, but its then suggested Helen was out walking the dog. You cant have it both ways. The depths of the lying is significant.
Helen Bailey's killing 'brought forward'
The important thing in his mind is the reason he had to do away with Helen, and her killing was brought forward because she was beginning to be aware of the fact that she was being drugged. He saw the Mumsnet internet searches, and in his head thats a significant thing. Mr Trimmer points out that in Stewarts police interview he mentioned Helen was into forums, like Mumsnet and things like that. Why did that pop into his head? Mr Trimmer asks the jury.
It's possible he was working but registered disabled. I think it must be that because otherwise I don't see him getting 2k a month from that long ago
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Stewart accused of creating a picture of Helen Bailey's disappearance
The whole picture is building up and Stewart is creating this picture that Helen has just gone. He tells police about significant places Helen might go - Brighton, Broadstairs. The officer then hits the nail on the head, and if it were you and me, or anyone else with common sense, what would be the response to this? Police ask: Is there anything that you suspect there might be a third party involved in Helens disappearance? Stewart said someone mentioned kidnapping, she has got enough money to be a target. Police ask him youve not received any ransom notes, no one has made any demands? Stewart answers no, definitely not.
Stewart described as a 'plain, practiced liar' by prosecution
Police ask him have you had any new visitors? Stewart said no, no-one springs to mind. You can watch him on this interview if you like, and you will see a plain, practiced liar, and an actor.
Changed story over scrambled eggs
In his interview, Stewart tells police Ive done Helen scrambled eggs on the morning of April 11. He then later said he didnt
Stewart accused of 'setting up' Helen Bailey's Broadstairs visit
This [next point] is one of the most obvious demonstrations of a creation of a story. This is setting up a tale. The tale that hes run with from the moment he spoke is that Helen has gone to Broadstairs. He is saying She is my lover, I am the Gorgeous Grey Haired widower. But by now according to his account, Helens phone has gone. It is with her kidnappers. He goes down to Broadstairs and that is when Helens phone connects to the wifi router on April 16. At this point according to his account, the phone is still in the house and hes texting Helen 
. Despite the apparent threat from Nick and Joe, he just sends these three letters. No frantic plea to the kidnappers. Those three letters stick with the notion that Helen has just left. And then it all goes a bit dead.
Prosecutor says Stewarts story thwarted when her body was found
A text to John Bailey, Helens brother please tell me when you speak to Helen, even if she tells me not to. Hes running with the lie. He doesnt say to John some kidnappers have got her, shall we sort it out? Another text to John Bailey are you there? [in Broadstairs] How is Helen?. Why would he write that? Its a nice touch, intending to enhance the lie that hes running with, and would have run with forever, if Helen had not been found.
The whole picture is building up and Stewart is creating this picture that Helen has just gone. He tells police about significant places Helen might go - Brighton, Broadstairs. The officer then hits the nail on the head, and if it were you and me, or anyone else with common sense, what would be the response to this? Police ask: Is there anything that you suspect there might be a third party involved in Helens disappearance? Stewart said someone mentioned kidnapping, she has got enough money to be a target. Police ask him youve not received any ransom notes, no one has made any demands? Stewart answers no, definitely not.
Stewart described as a 'plain, practiced liar' by prosecution
Police ask him have you had any new visitors? Stewart said no, no-one springs to mind. You can watch him on this interview if you like, and you will see a plain, practiced liar, and an actor.
Changed story over scrambled eggs
In his interview, Stewart tells police Ive done Helen scrambled eggs on the morning of April 11. He then later said he didnt
Stewart accused of 'setting up' Helen Bailey's Broadstairs visit
This [next point] is one of the most obvious demonstrations of a creation of a story. This is setting up a tale. The tale that hes run with from the moment he spoke is that Helen has gone to Broadstairs. He is saying She is my lover, I am the Gorgeous Grey Haired widower. But by now according to his account, Helens phone has gone. It is with her kidnappers. He goes down to Broadstairs and that is when Helens phone connects to the wifi router on April 16. At this point according to his account, the phone is still in the house and hes texting Helen
. Despite the apparent threat from Nick and Joe, he just sends these three letters. No frantic plea to the kidnappers. Those three letters stick with the notion that Helen has just left. And then it all goes a bit dead.Prosecutor says Stewarts story thwarted when her body was found
A text to John Bailey, Helens brother please tell me when you speak to Helen, even if she tells me not to. Hes running with the lie. He doesnt say to John some kidnappers have got her, shall we sort it out? Another text to John Bailey are you there? [in Broadstairs] How is Helen?. Why would he write that? Its a nice touch, intending to enhance the lie that hes running with, and would have run with forever, if Helen had not been found.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Stewart 'not clever enough' - court told
He was clever, but not clever enough. Because he took that [Helens] phone to Broadstairs, but although the SIM card was gone, the phone wasnt on the network, the wireless router picked this phone up. This may be one of the reasons why this defendant comes to the place he is now.
Phone records would look like Stewart was 'trying his best' to find Helen
By this stage, he texts Helen, saying please please call. On his account as he writes that Helen is with the kidnappers and hes given her phone to them. What is the purpose of saying that? Why do it? The only reason is to create an electronic record which is consistent with the lover his girlfriend whos walked out the door. He then texts her and says I have respected your wishes long enough, You have had enough space and time. Just let me know youre OK. Love you more. If Helen Bailey was never found and someone looks at the records years later, this shows that Stewart was trying his best to find Helen.
Stewart then texts Helens phone and says police wont tell me where you are if you dont want them to. They can stop all the fuss. Why write that? The kidnappers have apparently got the phone, so why would he be texting that phone this text? This is to reinforce the impression that his lover has walked out the door. The only reason hes writing this is to cover his tracks.
There will now be a break until 2.05pm.
He was clever, but not clever enough. Because he took that [Helens] phone to Broadstairs, but although the SIM card was gone, the phone wasnt on the network, the wireless router picked this phone up. This may be one of the reasons why this defendant comes to the place he is now.
Phone records would look like Stewart was 'trying his best' to find Helen
By this stage, he texts Helen, saying please please call. On his account as he writes that Helen is with the kidnappers and hes given her phone to them. What is the purpose of saying that? Why do it? The only reason is to create an electronic record which is consistent with the lover his girlfriend whos walked out the door. He then texts her and says I have respected your wishes long enough, You have had enough space and time. Just let me know youre OK. Love you more. If Helen Bailey was never found and someone looks at the records years later, this shows that Stewart was trying his best to find Helen.
Stewart then texts Helens phone and says police wont tell me where you are if you dont want them to. They can stop all the fuss. Why write that? The kidnappers have apparently got the phone, so why would he be texting that phone this text? This is to reinforce the impression that his lover has walked out the door. The only reason hes writing this is to cover his tracks.
There will now be a break until 2.05pm.
Duchy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 3
All that fuss about putting a quote from a book in the jurors bundles. Not only are the wrong words used but to say 'you are my life' when he took away her life is............£x&*!@!"%. How dare they! It's false! Something has to be done about it.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
The case resumes
The case has been called back on. There is now one further agreed fact in the case to be read to jurors.
The agreed fact is: DS Graham Paul examined Helen Baileys iPad for the term zopiclone and myasthenia gravis.
He also searched for reductions of these terms. None of the terms could be found in the searches on the device.
The internet search history of the device dated March 30 and April 19.
Prosecution continues closing speech
Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer is continuing his closing speech.
The Crown say Helen Baileys phone was later disposed of where it would never be found. It couldnt be tracked, because there was no sim card in it.
On July 11 bodycam footage showed police arriving at Stewarts house.
Some of the phrases during his arrest are important. Stewart is told in formal terms he is arrested for murder, and fraud.
He says youre joking?. This man knows Helen is apparently with kidnappers threatening her life.
Mr Trimmer continues: Stewart has been arrested for murder. If Nick and Joe were true, he knows the woman he allowed to be kidnapped was now dead.
Stewart sat on the stairs and said bloody hell why? What happened? but he does understand. According to him he knows full well where she is - with the supposed kidnappers. He then says Have you found Helen? Where is she? I dont know why the garage door is open. Why in that moment of crisis does the garage pop into his head? Thats the least he should be concerned about.
This is the mind of the man who has now been arrested for murder, hes entitled not to answer questions, and can sit there and say nothing.
But the words of the caution effectively say beware if you dont answer the questions now, some time down the line if in court you tell a story, the jury might well think you made it up.
And I suggest thats exactly what you should think.
What he didnt say on his arrest was anything about Nick, Joe, zopiclone, about a reward.
None of that he now tells you is true.
The Crown say he is hiding behind his legal advice.
"He ought to have said: ' I'm going to get those people. I don't care what they'll do to me'."
He would have still run with lie number one, but he is released on bail until July 12.
He cant live in the house anymore because searches go on until July 15.
He has to stay in a hotel, along with his two sons.
On July 15, police find Helens body, the dogs body and the other things in the cesspit, and Stewart is arrested again.
His sons are nearby, he knows where they are.
Theres no doubt now that Helen Bailey is not only dead, but somebody has put her in the cesspit full of excrement, together with the dog, the toy, pillow slip and some bin bags.
The woman he spent all that time with is now without doubt dead, and has been dealt with in the most awful fashion. That ought to be enough, for him to say Im going to get those people, I dont care what theyll do to me.
He said he couldnt tell police about Nick and Joe because of threats to his two sons. His sons were in a hotel that day. But he said nothing at all
The case has been called back on. There is now one further agreed fact in the case to be read to jurors.
The agreed fact is: DS Graham Paul examined Helen Baileys iPad for the term zopiclone and myasthenia gravis.
He also searched for reductions of these terms. None of the terms could be found in the searches on the device.
The internet search history of the device dated March 30 and April 19.
Prosecution continues closing speech
Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer is continuing his closing speech.
The Crown say Helen Baileys phone was later disposed of where it would never be found. It couldnt be tracked, because there was no sim card in it.
On July 11 bodycam footage showed police arriving at Stewarts house.
Some of the phrases during his arrest are important. Stewart is told in formal terms he is arrested for murder, and fraud.
He says youre joking?. This man knows Helen is apparently with kidnappers threatening her life.
Mr Trimmer continues: Stewart has been arrested for murder. If Nick and Joe were true, he knows the woman he allowed to be kidnapped was now dead.
Stewart sat on the stairs and said bloody hell why? What happened? but he does understand. According to him he knows full well where she is - with the supposed kidnappers. He then says Have you found Helen? Where is she? I dont know why the garage door is open. Why in that moment of crisis does the garage pop into his head? Thats the least he should be concerned about.
This is the mind of the man who has now been arrested for murder, hes entitled not to answer questions, and can sit there and say nothing.
But the words of the caution effectively say beware if you dont answer the questions now, some time down the line if in court you tell a story, the jury might well think you made it up.
And I suggest thats exactly what you should think.
What he didnt say on his arrest was anything about Nick, Joe, zopiclone, about a reward.
None of that he now tells you is true.
The Crown say he is hiding behind his legal advice.
"He ought to have said: ' I'm going to get those people. I don't care what they'll do to me'."
He would have still run with lie number one, but he is released on bail until July 12.
He cant live in the house anymore because searches go on until July 15.
He has to stay in a hotel, along with his two sons.
On July 15, police find Helens body, the dogs body and the other things in the cesspit, and Stewart is arrested again.
His sons are nearby, he knows where they are.
Theres no doubt now that Helen Bailey is not only dead, but somebody has put her in the cesspit full of excrement, together with the dog, the toy, pillow slip and some bin bags.
The woman he spent all that time with is now without doubt dead, and has been dealt with in the most awful fashion. That ought to be enough, for him to say Im going to get those people, I dont care what theyll do to me.
He said he couldnt tell police about Nick and Joe because of threats to his two sons. His sons were in a hotel that day. But he said nothing at all
Duchy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 3
Yes! email the judge!
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
She was sitting at her desk with no shoes on when she was smothered'
You saw how carefully Helens body was taken out of the pit, by the side so it came out as far as possible, in the condition it went in. So Nathaniel Cary, the pathologist, can tell you what he found.
But he didnt find much at all. There were no broken bones, no obvious bruises, nothing there which showed she had been beaten, had her legs or arms broken, or had her head stoved in. She had no shoes on.
Nick and Joe had dealt with her so carefully when they killed her had they?
Stewart told you that Nick and Joe showed him how they would deal with Helen by putting a hand round his neck.
By this time he had seen the pathologists report, saying that he couldnt exclude that Helen was smothered.
Why was she wearing no shoes? Because she was sitting at her desk with no shoes on. And she was smothered and taken as she was, to that cesspit. 'This tales becomes utterly absurd'
Lie number two begins to emerge on November 16, and 21, through the defence case statement. The Crown say the defence case statement was late because Stewart was bereaving away, filling the statement with every part he could of this tale he had made up. But in order to do so this tale becomes utterly absurd.
This tale involves people called Nick and Joe, who have no names beyond that, it involves kidnappers who exposed themselves to the defendant - there was no need to do that, because according to this defendant they knew his phone number.
Why would they bother to risk coming to the house?
'Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs and why would they want Helen's phone?'
These people have to have Stewart go to Broadstairs, because by now Stewart knows the phone has been seen in Broadstairs.
Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs, and why would they want Helens phone?
What can that phone have in it in any value to Nick and Joe? It first went on the network in 2011.
John Sinfield died before 2011.
The only purpose of weaving that into the story is to get the phone to the router in Broadstairs.
This is a full-blown, straightforward lie'
The kidnappers just happened upon someone taking zopiclone in increasing quantities? Its absurd.
This defendant has two good friends called Nick and Joe. They may or may not look like his story of Nick and Joe.
Stewart struggled to remember what he was talking about, giving the name Dave at one stage.
If youre going to pull out something from your mental filing cabinet its easy to pull out a name, and stick with a name you actually know.
This is a full blown, straightforward lie.
You saw how carefully Helens body was taken out of the pit, by the side so it came out as far as possible, in the condition it went in. So Nathaniel Cary, the pathologist, can tell you what he found.
But he didnt find much at all. There were no broken bones, no obvious bruises, nothing there which showed she had been beaten, had her legs or arms broken, or had her head stoved in. She had no shoes on.
Nick and Joe had dealt with her so carefully when they killed her had they?
Stewart told you that Nick and Joe showed him how they would deal with Helen by putting a hand round his neck.
By this time he had seen the pathologists report, saying that he couldnt exclude that Helen was smothered.
Why was she wearing no shoes? Because she was sitting at her desk with no shoes on. And she was smothered and taken as she was, to that cesspit. 'This tales becomes utterly absurd'
Lie number two begins to emerge on November 16, and 21, through the defence case statement. The Crown say the defence case statement was late because Stewart was bereaving away, filling the statement with every part he could of this tale he had made up. But in order to do so this tale becomes utterly absurd.
This tale involves people called Nick and Joe, who have no names beyond that, it involves kidnappers who exposed themselves to the defendant - there was no need to do that, because according to this defendant they knew his phone number.
Why would they bother to risk coming to the house?
'Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs and why would they want Helen's phone?'
These people have to have Stewart go to Broadstairs, because by now Stewart knows the phone has been seen in Broadstairs.
Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs, and why would they want Helens phone?
What can that phone have in it in any value to Nick and Joe? It first went on the network in 2011.
John Sinfield died before 2011.
The only purpose of weaving that into the story is to get the phone to the router in Broadstairs.
This is a full-blown, straightforward lie'
The kidnappers just happened upon someone taking zopiclone in increasing quantities? Its absurd.
This defendant has two good friends called Nick and Joe. They may or may not look like his story of Nick and Joe.
Stewart struggled to remember what he was talking about, giving the name Dave at one stage.
If youre going to pull out something from your mental filing cabinet its easy to pull out a name, and stick with a name you actually know.
This is a full blown, straightforward lie.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
'Why was there no mention of compensation or sleeping drugs in defence case statement?'
In the defence case statement, there is no mention of half a million pounds required in compensation.
How can it be that you forget that?
And zopiclone is central to the prosecution allegation against him. How can you forget that Helen Bailey searched for it, told him he couldnt take it, took it off him, and said shed take it herself?
How does the defendant forget that?
He said the reason zopiclone wasnt in the defence case statement was because he didnt think it was relevant.
'The tale beyond this becomes so absurd that a child who wrote it in his essay aged 11 might be laughed at by the rest of his class'
What we have is Stewart in custody, somebody attacks him and says dont snitch which he takes to mean not to tell police about what had actually happened.
So have Nick and Joe got the entirety of Bedford Prison under control?
A little while later, somebody comes with an illicit phone inside the prison.
On the other end is someone who says sorry about Helen. Do kidnappers do that?
And some time later you need not worry about Joe he has been dealt with. You can tell police what happened.
Its your judgement not mine, but this is total fantasy.
In the defence case statement, there is no mention of half a million pounds required in compensation.
How can it be that you forget that?
And zopiclone is central to the prosecution allegation against him. How can you forget that Helen Bailey searched for it, told him he couldnt take it, took it off him, and said shed take it herself?
How does the defendant forget that?
He said the reason zopiclone wasnt in the defence case statement was because he didnt think it was relevant.
'The tale beyond this becomes so absurd that a child who wrote it in his essay aged 11 might be laughed at by the rest of his class'
What we have is Stewart in custody, somebody attacks him and says dont snitch which he takes to mean not to tell police about what had actually happened.
So have Nick and Joe got the entirety of Bedford Prison under control?
A little while later, somebody comes with an illicit phone inside the prison.
On the other end is someone who says sorry about Helen. Do kidnappers do that?
And some time later you need not worry about Joe he has been dealt with. You can tell police what happened.
Its your judgement not mine, but this is total fantasy.
Duchy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 3
I want you to wear them WHILE she is eating them and live blogged too
Ooh la la!
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Why would Nick and Joe want to kill Helen and Boris?'
One of the most powerful questions for a jury to ask of a story or tale or piece of evidence is why? I suggest you ask that question.
Why was Helen killed if Nick and Joe took her? What would that achieve?
She had no access to anything very much, she couldnt find anything.
Stewart was not asked to get anything, There were no demands made.
They didnt say well kill her unless you do this.
Dont all kidnappers do that?
Why was Boris killed? Why didnt they just leave him? They didnt need to take him at all.
What was the toy in the cesspit? Why the pillow slip? Because they were part of the killing of Helen Bailey.
Stewart is 'quite simply, a devious killer'
Stewart is the Gorgeous Grey Haired Widower. Youve seen him, heard his story, how he came into contact with Helen, how she changed her entire wealth structure in his favour.
And youve heard a host of lies from the defendant.
He is quite simply, a devious killer.
close of pros
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-case-12612181
One of the most powerful questions for a jury to ask of a story or tale or piece of evidence is why? I suggest you ask that question.
Why was Helen killed if Nick and Joe took her? What would that achieve?
She had no access to anything very much, she couldnt find anything.
Stewart was not asked to get anything, There were no demands made.
They didnt say well kill her unless you do this.
Dont all kidnappers do that?
Why was Boris killed? Why didnt they just leave him? They didnt need to take him at all.
What was the toy in the cesspit? Why the pillow slip? Because they were part of the killing of Helen Bailey.
Stewart is 'quite simply, a devious killer'
Stewart is the Gorgeous Grey Haired Widower. Youve seen him, heard his story, how he came into contact with Helen, how she changed her entire wealth structure in his favour.
And youve heard a host of lies from the defendant.
He is quite simply, a devious killer.
close of pros
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/live-helen-bailey-murder-case-12612181
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
did you mark urgent in subject line Tortoise?
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
Brilliant tour de force, Cotton. Thank you very much indeed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Staff online
-
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 56
- Guests online
- 2,023
- Total visitors
- 2,079