GUILTY UK - Sadie Hartley, 60, murdered, Helmshore, Lancs, 14 Jan 2016 #1

[Alyce]

Finally, some news



The alleged motive for Sarah Williams murdering love rival Sadie Hartley "does not stand up to close scrutiny", a jury has heard.

It is said that Williams, 35, assassinated Ms Hartley, 60, so she could have the businesswoman's partner, Ian Johnston, 57, to herself.

But in his closing speech at Preston Crown Court, her barrister, Gordon Cole QC, said it made no sense for her to cut off the "financial lifeline" provided by her long-time lover, David Hardwick.
Mr Cole said: "There was a price to pay by Sarah Williams if she was going to set up home or have a permanent relationship with Ian Johnston. The price was the cutting off of her financial lifeline from David Hardwick, is that she wanted?

"You may think, bearing in mind how long she has been in that relationship with David Hardwick, that this was not about cutting off that lifeline, this was about having a relationship that David Hardwick did not know about.

"She had done it in the past and she was going to do it again.

<modsnip>

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa...d-close-scrutiny-jury-told.html#ixzz4H2VjW44X
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa...d-close-scrutiny-jury-told.html#ixzz4H2VaePHM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Alyce]

Walsh's defence


Tony Cross QC, defending Walsh, who did not give evidence, described both defendants as "vile" but suggested his client did not know Williams was capable of murder.

He told the jurors if they were not sure Walsh was guilty of murder as an accomplice, then they must consider a verdict of manslaughter.

He said it was Williams who had committed "uncontrolled butchery" on Ms Hartley, told police "brazen lies" and told the jury "absolute nonsense" and he "felt" for her lawyer.

"To have to defend this woman who has demonstrated evil in your presence," Mr Cross said.

"She is guilty of murder. There is absolutely no doubt of her guilt.

"She knows she's guilty of it and I suspect she knows you know she's guilty of it.

"The only issue which you may have to consider is the fate of my lay client.

"She, like her co-accused, is vile, is she not?

"She's as guilty as sin itself."

<modsnip>

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa...d-close-scrutiny-jury-told.html#ixzz4H2WDgOD3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Alyce]

So from the DM reporting it looks as though they are finished and nothing more til Monday ( Law Pages says back tomorrow )

 

[Alyce]

Walsh's defence

just snipped this bit, which I find confusing



But Mr Cross said if she believed Williams was really going to murder Ms Hartley, she would not have helped police and told them about her diaries detailing her involvement.


but Walsh handed over the diaries after the murder so how does that match what he is saying ?

because at that point Walsh did know that Williams had committed the crime - and she also said she believed Williams was going to kill her as well ?

 

[cottonweaver]

Mr Cross must be trying to imply that, prior to the murder, KW did not KNOW she was actually going to kill, just scare Sadie.

Once it had happened, KW was shocked, remorseful at her part but scared to come forward earlier and later upon SW's arrest assisted police on the basis she helped to plot a "scare", not an actual murder. She didn't realise that SW would actually go through with it

 

[faybradshaw]

Do any of you doubt SW did it after reading Cole's closing argument in favour of her? Could there be a 3rd party? There is no way on earth that SW would take the fall for anyone, but I'm not too sure that KW couldn't. If KW gets convicted of murder and not culpable homicde, do you even think she will appeal that?

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't have any doubt Fay that SW did this and the accomplice part is just to throw in some uncertainty, to play on "reasonable doubt".

Mind you, I don't remember why he claims there are significant "gaps" in the evidence.

I am not sure that KW is relying on wiggle room re a later appeal as I'm not up on the JEnterprise nitty gritty and the changes.

Someone mentioned , a few days ago,( sorry can't remember which poster) that KW's man Cross may even have advised her not to take the stand. KMH poster guessed she would not, maybe Cross knew if she got up there she would simply confirm her role in a pre-med murder and keeping her off it was the ONLY way that some doubt could be introduced in minds of a jury.

In a way maybe KW has played a blinder ......in the sense of frying pan vs a fire. ( She's still playing on the excuse she thought it was a game of Hunted/fantasy etc just as she told the police at the start. She had her excuse ready, right back then?) The diaries contradict the "scare" intention. Cross must have just one "Operation scare the ***** witless" diary entry and maybe "low-grade revenge" but there are scores of murder references in the diary too. I can't see any of it working, the jury would have to not be paying attention to that evidence.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes she did have that excuse ready back then.

Anyway, here's her diary bits that we have that hopefully the jury will be using to convict KW of murder, disbelieving a "scare" plot.

It shows she was considering not only a murder but the repercussions of that act and her culpability/risk
&#8220;Plan B will be needed ... I have no moral qualms, just a serious don&#8217;t let us get caught twinge.&#8221;
and
That&#8217;s fine as I&#8217;m not going to be involved at the sharp end&#8217;.
and
&#8220;Maybe make an ISIS flag to mislead the investigation. I&#8217;m much more into that.&#8221;


I had a look back at the evidence from KW's police interviews- just lies and excuses when compared to the diary and playing being a fool?
"In interview she said she was &#8220;petrified&#8221; of Williams but she never believed she would carry out the murder." When Katrina Walsh was arrested she told police in the car &#8220;I might have done something. I just don&#8217;t remember.&#8221;
and
"Asked why she hadn't gone to police about Williams, Walsh said she thought sniper would get her and she was terrified. Walsh said she wasn't present at murder and didn't realise it was real and thought it was a game like TV show the hunted"

and
"Walsh later told another witness she'd been used and told police she was a patsy. She said she was terrified of Williams" ( That fear does not come through in her diaries - she must be saying she was subsequently afraid. LOL Cross didn't use the sniper fears in his Closing. )

( PS KW's ex Kevin says he had never heard her complain of memory problems , this came out the day of her arrest and was her later excuse for using diaries - can't rem if I don't write it down.)

 

[Cherwell]

All I can say is, having seen IJ's photo, he must have been very "charismatic."

He's certainly no [insert handsome celeb of your choice], is he? :yuck:

 

[faybradshaw]

What normal person involved or committing a murder would write a diary recording evidence and not make sure they destroyed it! SW certainly literally met her 'partner in crime' but it backfired on her, thinking she was committing the perfect crime. I hope they both get the sentence they deserve... As for the sky instructor, don't think much of him and feel he is accountable to a certain degree as well. Wish Sadie had never met him...

 

[cottonweaver]

What normal person involved or committing a murder would write a diary recording evidence and not make sure they destroyed it! SW certainly literally met her 'partner in crime' but it backfired on her, thinking she was committing the perfect crime. I hope they both get the sentence they deserve... As for the sky instructor, don't think much of him and feel he is accountable to a certain degree as well. Wish Sadie had never met him...

The whole thing was crazy, but I was just on that page re BIB

" Walsh was then allegedly given the task of destroying the evidence, but the prosecution claimed that she did not carry out these orders correctly. McDermott said: &#8220;Sarah Williams will have counted on her co-conspirator hiding these things forever. She miscalculated.&#8221;
Clothes allegedly used in the attack were only partially burned and other incriminating items including the boots, knife, stun gun and keys to the Clio were hidden under manure in one of the horses&#8217; fields at Walsh&#8217;s stables, rather than destroyed. A towel used to clean the steering wheel of the Clio was hidden in a tack room and her diary in the eaves of a roof..."

That diary must have been precious? Worst piece of evidence, yet it was in the eaves. Did she want to re-read it? Did she think it was her insurance policy against SW even when it was so incriminating? ( Remember she had torn out some pages and rubbed out other entries...)

Mc Dermott Pros said "&#8220;However she remembered in phenomenal detail where she had hidden these items.
&#8220;If you didn&#8217;t know where they were you would probably never find them."

So she just bottled it when the police turned up and told them?
This hiding stuff very badly must have been the first rows between KW & SW. SW would have been very bitter about that so yes she probably did fear for her life for fecking it all up, precisely because she had always been aware of what SW was capable of!?

 

[Alyce]

Mr Cross must be trying to imply that, prior to the murder, KW did not KNOW she was actually going to kill, just scare Sadie.

Once it had happened, KW was shocked, remorseful at her part but scared to come forward earlier and later upon SW's arrest assisted police on the basis she helped to plot a "scare", not an actual murder. She didn't realise that SW would actually go through with it

Thanks. That makes sense to me now.

 

[Alyce]

I don't have any doubt Fay that SW did this and the accomplice part is just to throw in some uncertainty, to play on "reasonable doubt".

Mind you, I don't remember why he claims there are significant "gaps" in the evidence.

I am not sure that KW is relying on wiggle room re a later appeal as I'm not up on the JEnterprise nitty gritty and the changes.

Someone mentioned , a few days ago,( sorry can't remember which poster) that KW's man Cross may even have advised her not to take the stand. KMH poster guessed she would not, maybe Cross knew if she got up there she would simply confirm her role in a pre-med murder and keeping her off it was the ONLY way that some doubt could be introduced in minds of a jury.

In a way maybe KW has played a blinder ......in the sense of frying pan vs a fire. ( She's still playing on the excuse she thought it was a game of Hunted/fantasy etc just as she told the police at the start. She had her excuse ready, right back then?) The diaries contradict the "scare" intention. Cross must have just one "Operation scare the ***** witless" diary entry and maybe "low-grade revenge" but there are scores of murder references in the diary too. I can't see any of it working, the jury would have to not be paying attention to that evidence.

Re the gaps in the evidence. I think this is Williams defence barrister just trying to push some blame over to Walsh on account of her not testifying. All the evidence points to the two of them, there is no indication of a third party but I guess a barrister has to do whatever he can for his client.

Walsh and her refusal to testify. I had not thought of it before but yes could be Tony Cross decided she would be more of a liability in the witness box. I realise he was only going to mention diary entries which suited his closing speech, but I dont think it will have helped at all, the Jury heard all of the diary, probably more than we did.

 

[Alyce]

Re Williams giving Walsh all the evidence to destroy. If she was actually planning to kill Walsh ( as Walsh claims ) then perhaps she was counting on Walsh not being able to destroy the evidence properly, and it would provide the back up to her *suicide* .

 

[Tortoise]

Has anyone wondered what happens if a person is too scared of repercussions (being killed in revenge in future when they are released from prison maybe) to testify against a co-defendant? I've thought about it and I really see no way around that. But presumably it could be a basis for an appeal.

I'm not saying KW isn't guilty because I think she is.

 

[Alyce]

Interesting thought re Walsh and an appeal.

I presume that if Walsh's reason for not testifying was because she was scared of Williams, then this reason would have been logged with the court/judge. However, we did not hear her barrister provide a reason in court as to why Walsh did not testify - and I would have expected him to mention it, if only so that he could have it on public record, to assist with an appeal.

Again, just wondering here, but is there a possibility that, after sentencing ( assuming Williams gets a long life sentence ) Walsh might then try to appeal her own sentence and agree to give evidence, with the reasoning that she now feels safe, knowing Williams is out of the way for at least 30 or more years.
In that situation, I wonder if an appeal would even be allowed, or would be considered as wasting the court's time.

As I have said before, I really hope Walsh gets an equal sentence to Williams, rather than a lesser manslaughter charge. I would need to go back to the beginning of the thread to check, but I have a feeling this is a 11 person Jury, and, if so, do hope it does not complicate matters.

 

[Alyce]

Sorry just snipped this post to get the relevant section

[h=3]Juror discharged - case will continue with 11 on jury[/h][FONT="]Before proceedings start today a juror has been discharged.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#494949][FONT="]The judge Mr Justice Turner said the juror was ill and receiving treatment and they didn&#8217;t have enough information about his possible return so he has been discharged and the trial will continue with 11 jurors.
[/FONT]

Just bringing this back up, it is indeed an 11 person Jury. 6 women and 5 men.

 

[Tortoise]

Interesting thought re Walsh and an appeal.

I presume that if Walsh's reason for not testifying was because she was scared of Williams, then this reason would have been logged with the court/judge. However, we did not hear her barrister provide a reason in court as to why Walsh did not testify - and I would have expected him to mention it, if only so that he could have it on public record, to assist with an appeal.

Again, just wondering here, but is there a possibility that, after sentencing ( assuming Williams gets a long life sentence ) Walsh might then try to appeal her own sentence and agree to give evidence, with the reasoning that she now feels safe, knowing Williams is out of the way for at least 30 or more years.
In that situation, I wonder if an appeal would even be allowed, or would be considered as wasting the court's time.

As I have said before, I really hope Walsh gets an equal sentence to Williams, rather than a lesser manslaughter charge. I would need to go back to the beginning of the thread to check, but I have a feeling this is a 11 person Jury, and, if so, do hope it does not complicate matters.

I'm not sure but I think it would have to be an appeal against conviction as well as sentence, because she could argue she never got to have her case put to a jury, because of intimidation. It's just a thought anyway. She may have even told her barrister not to give her reasons, because that in itself would (in her mind) put her at risk. This way she hasn't incriminated Williams at all, so can feel safe.

 

[Alyce]

Today's listing


Preston 5
T20167035
T20167037

katrina walsh
sarah williams
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:48

 

[Tortoise]

Are we going to get a verdict today do you think?