GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #4

Status
Not open for further replies.

tlcya

Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
41,969
Reaction score
62,258
The defendant wiped his eyes as he listened to a recording of himself being interviewed by detectives, following his arrest in April.

As he was asked about the note millionaire children's author, Mrs Bailey allegedly left before her disappearance, Stewart was heard telling officers: "The note was handwriting, it wasn't typed. I thought it was Helen's.

"And she signed the note, no one else would have signed it like that. LB is a nickname I had for Helen, my nickname is BB. It's going back to when we first met. She was little bean and I was big bean."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26672...999-calls-reporting-childrens-author-missing/


The fiance of children's author Helen Bailey "grinned" at police officers as they attempted to question him about her sudden disappearance, a court has heard.

Ian Stewart, 56, of Royston, Hertfordshire, is accused of drugging and killing the Electra Brown writer in a financially motivated plot last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...er-trial-authors-fiance-grinned-police-tried/

Sgt Nicole Goodyear told the court Mr Stewart followed police "everywhere" during a search on 15 April.

She said: "He was very interested in what we were doing, he wanted to know what we were doing and why."

Mr Stewart also denies preventing a lawful burial, fraud and three counts of perverting the course of justice.

The trial continues.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-38692970

attachment.php


UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016
Thread #2

Thread #3

Please continue discussing here.
 
Perhaps the timing was all to do with the sale of the Gateshead property, the only property which hadn't been bequeathed to him. If he thought that sale would go ahead with Helen missing, that is money that I think would have gone into their joint account. I say that because Helen said to the solicitor she would take IS's id for them at her next appointment. I can't think why else they would need his id.
 
I think Helen's 'interim will' is natural, one doesn't know how to proceed to a full conclusion, without much thought. After protecting IS and his Sons, she needed to return to 'herself' - her sharing of 'prosperous wealth' with JS - and that which honours the Son and Daughter of JS.
She also had a loving deep relationship with her Brother, and before IS, he was her main man since the demise of JS.
I believe - that through the inability to SHARE within the makeup of IS - he did not only wish to possess the money, he wished to possess Helen.
I don't think he could ever 'possess' Helen - she was quite beyond this. And would have analysed him - and every part of her life regularly.
Could it be - behind closed of beautiful 'mansion' - there was a battle of control. Helen cautious in her funds (and yet so generous to him) and IS keeping his accounts of his money safe like, off shore to Helen.
He then has an answer for EVERYTHING - when he drives from Broadstairs to Surrey to pester Tony Hurley - he is thinking ... how to do this? Ah yes ... I shall pretend jealousy, and while I suggest you have something big with Helen . I can excuse my desperation, my madness in driving toward my Prize.
IS has great energy when he needs it .. whether to the tip, to the bowls, to Surrey ... and how the Defence can ever say he did not have the energy to achieve his greatest aim in the demise of Helen. The person who offered him MORE than he had ever, ever had in his life within love and consideration and tenderness.
 
Yes, he got more done that day than I manage most weeks.
 
In the week before there are two incidents of drugging that we know of.

Monday 4th was the morning Helen slept for 5 hours. IS' parents visited while Helen was asleep.

Tuesday 5th Helen went to see the solicitor about the sale of her Gateshead property. That was also the day IS received the all clear over his cancer scare. Helen met her friend Margaret.

Friday 8th Helen searched internet 'can't stop falling asleep'. She cancelled her 2:30 follow up appointment with the solicitor and re-booked for Monday, IS said it was because she kept falling asleep/was unwell. IS says they found out Brocket Hall was not available. Did this phone call happen while Helen was asleep?? (or did they visit?)

Sat 9th They are in Tesco with the phone incident. Sometime this weekend IS does his first drive since his op, with Jamie. Is it to test his stamina? Jamie was surprised he drove to Cambridge on Monday night.
Sun 10th IS went out for a long walk with Helen and Boris, to get his fitness back.
 
"faybradshaw - Yes, after today's evidence I'm coming to the same conclusion. Something doesn't add up about the day he chose to do the awful deed, and his muddled cover up. There's a piece of the jigsaw missing and on balance it's probably some kind of confrontation between him and Helen which made him decide to act there and then. He had been planning it and thinking about if for so long, actually doing it probably wasn;t too much of a leap for him (especially if he has ever got away with something like this in the past)."

Maybe Helen talked about going for some tests to find out what was wrong with her...
I also still think re why he didn`t wait until they were married - he just couldn`t afford to have another wife die suddenly. I presume the situation regarding his first wife is not widely known to certain people in the court room.
 
There are two stories about Brocket Hall. One is that they couldn't do the dates. The other is that they had removed certain furnishings.

Seems odd that there were two problems. I wonder if they will be called as a witness.
 
What was the Tesco phone incident? I seem to have missed that.
Was it the incident with a scanner related by her mother to the court:
[FONT=&quot]"There was a Tesco incident when she came back to her car with the scanner in her hand, but the main one was when she lost the dog on the beach and just went home - that would not have happened previously.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"I was reassuring her on the Tesco incident, I didn't think it was a big deal but afterwards thinking about it it was just another memory problem."[/FONT]
 
What was the Tesco phone incident? I seem to have missed that.
Was it the incident with a scanner related by her mother to the court:
[FONT=&amp]"There was a Tesco incident when she came back to her car with the scanner in her hand, but the main one was when she lost the dog on the beach and just went home - that would not have happened previously.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]"I was reassuring her on the Tesco incident, I didn't think it was a big deal but afterwards thinking about it it was just another memory problem."[/FONT]

There was CCTV of them together in Tesco. There had been a shoplifting incident and the security guard asked IS if he could use his phone. IS denies it was him on the CCTV.

I think the prosecution is using this incident to prove his phone identification and subsequent activity, because they never received his phone. He lost it. (cough)
 
There was CCTV of them together in Tesco. There had been a shoplifting incident and the security guard asked IS if he could use his phone. IS denies it was him on the CCTV.

I think the prosecution is using this incident to prove his phone identification and subsequent activity, because they never received his phone. He lost it. (cough)

I want to know more about this for a few reasons. A big one is because I work at Tesco and I cannot think of a situation where a staff member would ask to borrow a customer's phone.
 
"faybradshaw - Yes, after today's evidence I'm coming to the same conclusion. Something doesn't add up about the day he chose to do the awful deed, and his muddled cover up. There's a piece of the jigsaw missing and on balance it's probably some kind of confrontation between him and Helen which made him decide to act there and then. He had been planning it and thinking about if for so long, actually doing it probably wasn;t too much of a leap for him (especially if he has ever got away with something like this in the past)."

Maybe Helen talked about going for some tests to find out what was wrong with her...
I also still think re why he didn`t wait until they were married - he just couldn`t afford to have another wife die suddenly. I presume the situation regarding his first wife is not widely known to certain people in the court room.

But there must have been an argument or something that triggered him, either from the days before or very early on the Monday morning....because Helen was on line more or less continuously from 8.16 to 10.58
And if they were arguing early Monday, then I don't see how she would be on line, happily chatting re weddings and looking at venues.
Plus he had to have administered a dosage that morning in order to be able to murder her with zero resistance. Unless of course she was, unwittingly, self medicating via her herbal tablets.
My guess is there was a disagreement over the weekend, or perhaps a discussion about Helen finally getting her Will tidied up and this triggered him to take the first available opportunity, which would be the Monday when no one else in the house.
 
Thanks, hunkerdown for the recommendation of "The Widower", have found it on daily motion, so will try one of the episodes

[video=dailymotion;x1i7bve]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1i7bve_the-widower-episode-1_shortfilms[/video]

And thanks to Lit Up for your feedback on today. Much appreciated.
 
But there must have been an argument or something that triggered him, either from the days before or very early on the Monday morning....because Helen was on line more or less continuously from 8.16 to 10.58
And if they were arguing early Monday, then I don't see how she would be on line, happily chatting re weddings and looking at venues.
Plus he had to have administered a dosage that morning in order to be able to murder her with zero resistance. Unless of course she was, unwittingly, self medicating via her herbal tablets.
My guess is there was a disagreement over the weekend, or perhaps a discussion about Helen finally getting her Will tidied up and this triggered him to take the first available opportunity, which would be the Monday when no one else in the house.

I have a feeling it might be a case of HB collapsing from an adverse reaction to the drug, either by overdosage or withdrawal and a fit. I am sure he would have known the side effects of the drug. No sign of a struggle, no injuries. Maybe she fell unconscious and he smothered her. Not too sure there was even an argument or falling out. He had obviously been working up to her death as he had been drugging her for at least three months.
 
Daily List for Wednesday 1 February 2017 at BRICKET ROAD ST ALBANS

Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRIGHT QC

Trial (Part Heard)

T20167121
STEWART Ian
41E12190616

PAPER FILE
 
Many thanks to Lit Up for their on the spot reports and those who are keeping us up to date with feeds from tweeter and reporters.

The last court day was very confusing and I hope the jury were not overwhelmed. They did ask the judge intelligent questions so they seem on top of it.

I would like to know if the pension/benefit that IS receives is dependent on remaining single such as a widow pension. That could be a substantial motive not to marry.

My understanding of yesterday was that Helen had a draft will which was up to her executor to carry out in which she made IS the primary benefactee. In addition she had a life insurance policy to reduce any inheritance tax. So in effect IS would have received the same amount of inheritance whether they were married or not.

What is playing on my mind now is when Helen fell asleep for five hours missing a visit from ISs parents. I think this was on on either the 5th or 8th of April. The first thing I think of is that IS is desperate not to have his parents and Helen meet! Maybe he has told lies to one of these parties which will be revealed when they meet. IS had something to hide then. I hope ISs parents will take the stand.

It is this sleeping episode which Helen then goes on to search the web (if my memory is correct). I wonder if she was starting to realise the truth of what was happening to her. And that IS though he had to act fast.
 
(Pasting up as we have a newish thread and it's good to have yesterday's evidence altogether where it is easier to find, at the start of a thread. )

Financial investigator Stephen Theedom

Stewart, following the death of his first wife, received a number of lump sums.
He received £28,000 from Cambridge County Council,
a £33,000 life insurance policy
and £16,000 Legal and General policy.
Stewart sold his old property for £520,000, put £470,000 into his home with Bailey, leaving £50,000.
The court heard £10,000 was found in a Santander Bank Account by the investigator, who says Stewart had assets in other accounts.

The investigator confirms that the accounts he has managed to find for Stewart totalled around £162,000 in cash.
He also had a total monthly net income of £1,933.

The joint account goes back to August 2014. “The account is a Santander 123 account which has been set up to deal with domestic payments. * By May, 9,2016 it had become £4,000. It was brought about by a change in the standing order Apart from that one direct debit there is no change 2014- 2016.) There was a regular payment to the couple’s joint account of £600 from Helen Bailey.*On April 11, 2016, there is £22,877 in the joint account.

Helen Bailey had a Suffolk Life self-invested pension, set up two years ago, worth around £235,000. The named beneficiary is Stewart. On her death he would receive those funds. A £1.28 million life insurance policy was taken out by Ms Bailey to cover inheritance tax in the event of her death.
He explains that Bailey and Stewart’s Baldock road property was bought for £1.1 million.
Stewart put in £470,000 to this purchase. Bailey sold her previous home for £1.6 million.
£312,000 - the valuation of the Broadstairs property, owned solely by Helen Bailey.
£180,000 - the valuation of her Gateshead property.
The investigator puts Bailey’s property portfolio as around £1,850,000.

Bailey had around £60,000 in her Barclays bank accounts. She had a joint bank account with Stewart holding just under £90,000. This gives a total estimated valuation of Bailey’s assets of £3,326,316

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416

Obviously this is just one news source, extra tweets etc can be found in the previous thread.

eg. "The defendant, who was out of work due to illness, already received around £2,000 a month in sickness pay and benefits, the court was told."
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/alleged-killer-author-helen-bailey-12533780
 
Ms King-Jones solicitor

A version of Ms Bailey’s will dating from 2012. - the bulk of the old will went to other people, not to Ian Stewart."The will assigns various gifts. A 50 per cent share of the residue to brother John Bailey, the other 50 per cent to Jenny Winterbottom and stepson Daniel Sinfield. The last page has the signatures of Helen Bailey, and there are two witnesses - Ian Stewart and a woman named Monica. Ms King Jones confirms that if someone is a witness they are not allowed to be a beneficiary."

Will revised July 25th 2015
“When I met with Helen Bailey she had prepared a short agenda she wanted to make a will but hadn’t made her mind up fully as to what she wanted to do.
“She told me the reasons for reviewing her will were firstly that her current will was out of date, and secondly that there was no provision being made for Ian Stewart."

Stewart power of attorney April 10, 2015
Ms King-Jones discussed two versions of granting powers of attorney with Ms Bailey.she said: “Power of attorney is a document that can be put in place appointing someone to step into your shoes, so if you were poorly... then that person could step into your shoes to sign things.“There was a lasting power of attorney -property and affairs, that relates to property money, shares assets and then there is a lasting power of attorney - health and welfare.”
Documents were registered with the office of the public guardian on March 6, 2015, and Ms Bailey was notified. Ms King-Jones confirms that Stewart was the individual being granted power of attorney. She says: “The last power of attorney -property and affairs, the appointment of the attorney was Ian Stewart but if he was unable to act then there was a replacement, but that power of attorney wasn’t limited to mental incapacity.”John Bailey, Ms Bailey’s brother was Mr Stewart’s replacement. Power of attorney was registered and effective by April 10, 2015. Ms Bailey’s updated will was signed July 25, 2014.“She wanted that he would have immediate access, as soon as could be possible, to funds to ensure that he could remain in the house and also more long-term that he would have funds and inheritance to be able both to live in that property or another and generally. “She recognised that because she was not married he would not benefit.”

In the new draft to her will, Ms Bailey inserted a statement declaring she was expecting to marry Ian Stewart and that the will would not be revoked if she married him, and would remain effective even if she died before marrying him
“That is not a standard provision.” said Ms King-Jones.
Ms King-Jones said the draft will she helped create “was intended to be an interim will, to give [Ms Bailey] peace of mind that there was something in place and that she could work on it.”

cross-exam
Defence counsel Simon Russell Flint QC claims that despite Stewart being the primary beneficiary of Ms Bailey’s will, he was not guaranteed to funds in the event of her death.
He says: “This will doesn’t make any specific provision of any specific amount being left to Ian Stewart, it is entirely within the discretion of the trustee, and the trustee might determine I’m not going to give you a penny Mr Stewart.”Ms King-Jones agrees this is the case, but adds: “It was an intended as an interim will. Where one doesn’t have immediate family or children or others, it’s very usual that somebody can’t quite decide whether somebody is to have a £10,000 legacy or a £50,000 legacy and this gave her time to consider about what to do. “Helen Bailey clearly trusted her financial executor to carry it out.”

Ms King-Jones is still being cross-examined. She confirms that she spoke to Stewart on June 2, 2016, and he asked for a copy of the power of attorney document. She said: “He asked me how does he invoke it? I explained there is no restriction on it and I would normally issue a solicitor certified copy and contact my client. He said it wasn’t desperate. He said he had to cancel holiday and needed it for insurance and to contact the bank. “I have not come across a request for a document where I could not notify my client that it was going to be put into effect.”Ms King Jones advised him to seek separate legal advice on how to operate the power of attorney.
The court heard if Ms Bailey was to die unmarried then it was acknowledged that there would likely be an inheritance tax bill of £1.28million. Ms Bailey eventually took out a life insurance policy to cover this eventuality. In an email to Mr Hurley, following a meeting with him and Ms King-Jones, Ms Bailey set out her wishes for her will. She asked for Stewart to be given her share of their main house, ownership of the second house in Broadstairs and a sum of money to ensure he lived a comfortable lifestyle.
Ms King Jones says: “I personally took this to be a large step towards her wishes, that should anything happen to her it would have been a very considerable indication of what she wanted.
“Not a legally binding instruction. It’s an expression of her wishes. One would encourage a client to be more formal”

questions from the jury
Proceedings have now resumed in court. The judge briefly deals with a couple of questions from the jury concerning Helen Bailey’s assets. He confirms that Stewart would have received the £235,000 pension fund and £1.2million life insurance pay out, separate to the conditions of her will.

link as previous

extra on the statement inserted:
The will was said to include a provision which read: “I am expected to marry Ian Stewart, my marriage to him does not revoke this will, this will still be effective even if I do not marry Ian.”
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/alleged-killer-author-helen-bailey-12533780
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
222
Guests online
1,306
Total visitors
1,528

Forum statistics

Threads
589,166
Messages
17,914,841
Members
227,741
Latest member
Drury Lane
Back
Top