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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
The weather that's pushed the sentencing to 11am - Storm Doris.

Boris is back to ensure this bstard reaps the whirlwind.
 
Florrie, do you mean an hour beyond 11 am (listed on Courtserve), or was the move from 10 to 11 the delay?

ETA Cottonweaver's answered my query.
 
Can I just say that this forum has given me an astonishing number of new ways in which to describe piles. You are all geniuses lol.


"Chalfonts"; "Arsegrapes" and my personal favourite "Buttock McNuggets"

Inspired.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I thought it always was 11 am ?


Tara Cox‏@TaraCoxCN 7m7 minutes ago

Ian Stewart's sentencing is now listed for 11am. Talk that travel disruption has affected many journeys to the court
 
LozDa said:
I agree with you. But I was more talking about the legalities of the fact that they can, in fact, still be beneficiaries - as it was suggested they couldn't be in the previous thread.

They can still be named beneficiaries, even if they refuse and it goes to a contingent. That side of things, I can't predict or suggest how it will go - and I wouldn't want to.

In my opinion, and from what I've seen and heard from JB, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the boys were named as beneficiaries. What happens from that point on is between them...
Click to expand...

Sorry LozDa, I should have made it clearer given we are on a new thread! I presupposed you were just adding clarity to the discussion around the legalities so it didn't occur to me. Then again, I am a bloke! :)

I think you're right about JB but I wonder if, going back to what I said about the son's reluctance to inherit under these circumstances, Tony might be better off leaving them out altogether and just leaving it up to JB to sort out in due course.
 
TheRisenBishop said:
From my experience, notwithstanding any possible legal challenges to the discretionary trust as administered by Tony Hurley, those beneficiaries inheriting under such circumstances (Jamie and Oliver) would be highly reluctant to take anything at all.

Irrespective of the legalities and Hurley's powers as a trustee, their Father preyed upon Helen and engineered the setting up of the trust for his own nefarious reasons. Morally, because of how he acted, their relationship was/is null and void and so too should be any inheritance due to his sons.

I might be wrong but I cannot see the sons being comfortable with inheriting under such circumstances.
Click to expand...

I think the trustee would be "obliged" to exclude them if they are not named beneficiaries. I do think it is a possibility that Helen's brother might try to help them out with a roof over their head. The murder was nothing to do with them and now they are homeless. I think Helen's family are genuinely lovely people and I can see them being benevolent under these circumstances.
 
Moll said:
Florrie, do you mean an hour beyond 11 am (listed on Courtserve), or was the move from 10 to 11 the delay?

ETA Cottonweaver's answered my query.
Click to expand...

That was my thought Moll. Tara is tweeting that it has been set back to 11am, but it always was 11am, so am thinking the 10am hearing will begin at 11am, which could put IS back to midday. Not that it matters for him, sitting in his cell, not having to travel anywhere
 
I was surprised the papers had a photo of the first page of Helen's will (re earlier will discussions).
 
TheRisenBishop said:
Sorry LozDa, I should have made it clearer given we are on a new thread! I presupposed you were just adding clarity to the discussion around the legalities so it didn't occur to me. Then again, I am a bloke! :)

I think you're right about JB but I wonder if, going back to what I said about the son's reluctance to inherit under these circumstances, Tony might be better off leaving them out altogether and just leaving it up to JB to sort out in due course.
Click to expand...

Haha, I think I probably should have made it clear I was talking legally as opposed to what I think should happen. My own views are pretty different and marry up with your view entirely! :)

I definitely think it should (and probably will) just go to JB to arrange how he wishes.

Either way really, IS doesn't get anything, so... :party:
 
LozDa said:
I agree with you. But I was more talking about the legalities of the fact that they can, in fact, still be beneficiaries - as it was suggested they couldn't be in the previous thread.

They can still be named beneficiaries, even if they refuse and it goes to a contingent. That side of things, I can't predict or suggest how it will go - and I wouldn't want to.

In my opinion, and from what I've seen and heard from JB, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the boys were named as beneficiaries. What happens from that point on is between them...
Click to expand...
I would not want to be in Tony Hurley's position of trying to carry out Helens wishes regarding the will. I personally don't think the sons should benefit at all from this. My feelings are that the original will instructions ought to be carried out. I think in this situation it would be better to revert back to this, in terms of Helen not ever meeting Ian.

It is obvious that he was only interested in her financial position and carried out the deed to gain from this. The sons will benefit eventually from Ian and his parents and perhaps even Dianes parents wills. They will also benefit from the proceeds of the house sale if Ian is prepared to part with this.

In respect of the house sale we know that Ian put in 40% and any profit should be based on this amount, rather than gain anything more. I have been wondering also that if the house has to be sold at less than the true market value due to the horrible situation, would Ian have to stand that loss? I believe strongly that he should, because he created the situation. Does anyone else have any idea about this please.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
LozDa said:
I agree with you. But I was more talking about the legalities of the fact that they can, in fact, still be beneficiaries - as it was suggested they couldn't be in the previous thread.

They can still be named beneficiaries, even if they refuse and it goes to a contingent. That side of things, I can't predict or suggest how it will go - and I wouldn't want to.

In my opinion, and from what I've seen and heard from JB, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the boys were named as beneficiaries. What happens from that point on is between them...
Click to expand...

I doubt they are.

There was a note somewhere, in one of the many articles, that said there were 15 beneficiaries.
My guess is that most of these will be people who are receiving a small bequest - cash or item - and then the residue ( which will be the bulk of the estate ) goes to JB and the stepchildren on a percentage basis.
Which is as it should be imo.

Am sure Helen - under her final Will and wishes re IS - would have expected IS to take care of his own family.
 
Alyce said:
That was my thought Moll. Tara is tweeting that it has been set back to 11am, but it always was 11am, so am thinking the 10am hearing will begin at 11am, which could put IS back to midday. Not that it matters for him, sitting in his cell, not having to travel anywhere
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused - not for the first time in this trial. And I don't want to do what I did yesterday, go out for an hour and miss the crucial moments.
 
I'm not sure why we are speculating and discussing the will and what people are going to get or what we think they should get tbh. It's none of our business and not anything to do with us.

Sorry. I'm just uneasy with the chat about not thinking the sons should get anything etc. It's absolutely nothing to do with any of us. Let the family sort it out as they will do what's best and right for them.

Basically I think as long as IS gets nada, which is definitely going to be the case we should all be leaving it at that. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I see the police say that IS only became a suspect in June - but one supposes this is merely to protect them legally when they were speaking to IS informally.

Seeing him in those interviews, one suspects he was a hot suspect right from the start
 
janeh said:
I would not want to be in Tony Hurley's position of trying to carry out Helens wishes regarding the will. I personally don't think the sons should benefit at all from this. My feelings are that the original will instructions ought to be carried out. I think in this situation it would be better to revert back to this, in terms of Helen not ever meeting Ian.

It is obvious that he was only interested in her financial position and carried out the deed to gain from this. The sons will benefit eventually from Ian and his parents and perhaps even Dianes parents wills. They will also benefit from the proceeds of the house sale if Ian is prepared to part with this.

In respect of the house sale we know that Ian put in 40% and any profit should be based on this amount, rather than gain anything more. I have been wondering also that if the house has to be sold at less than the true market value due to the horrible situation, would Ian have to stand that loss? I believe strongly that he should, because he created the situation. Does anyone else have any idea about this please.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

One thing that I haven't seen addressed anywhere - surely the sons, or at least the one who lived at home, must have been aware of the existence of the 'well' and the futile emptying of the other septic tank, but did not mention anything to help the police investigation in this regard at all and it was left to the neighbour's daughter and previous owner to alert the police.
 
mrjitty said:
I see the police say that IS only became a suspect in June - but one supposes this is merely to protect them legally when they were speaking to IS informally.

Seeing him in those interviews, one suspects he was a hot suspect right from the start
Click to expand...

Yes that came out in the trial, he was declared an 'official' suspect at end of June.
 
janeh said:
I would not want to be in Tony Hurley's position of trying to carry out Helens wishes regarding the will. I personally don't think the sons should benefit at all from this. My feelings are that the original will instructions ought to be carried out. I think in this situation it would be better to revert back to this, in terms of Helen not ever meeting Ian.

It is obvious that he was only interested in her financial position and carried out the deed to gain from this. The sons will benefit eventually from Ian and his parents and perhaps even Dianes parents wills. They will also benefit from the proceeds of the house sale if Ian is prepared to part with this.

In respect of the house sale we know that Ian put in 40% and any profit should be based on this amount, rather than gain anything more. I have been wondering also that if the house has to be sold at less than the true market value due to the horrible situation, would Ian have to stand that loss? I believe strongly that he should, because he created the situation. Does anyone else have any idea about this please.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


There was some talk, back on an earlier thread, of IS not being able to have any money from Hartwell Lodge.

The rule ( law ? ) about if a couple are joint tenants ( as opposed to tenants in common ) and the scenario of one partner murdering the other.
The law ? says that in this situation, they look upon this as though the murderer has pre deceased the victim, and therefore the whole of the property is claimed by the victim ( in this case Helen's estate ).

I think that would be brilliant. Take away the thing that is dearest to IS - money.

As to whether the house will sell. Yes, it will and probably at the asking price - value at the moment is about £1.7million.
 
cheeseman said:
One thing that I haven't seen addressed anywhere - surely the sons, or at least the one who lived at home, must have been aware of the existence of the 'well' and the futile emptying of the other septic tank, but did not mention anything to help the police investigation in this regard at all and it was left to the neighbour's daughter and previous owner to alert the police.
Click to expand...
Yes, I don't believe that any of the sons were involved at all, but there must have been suspicions regarding their Dad's behaviour at times. I would imagine that prior the Helens body being found, any thoughts would have been put to the back of their minds.



Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 289 more.
Total: 4,476 (members: 290, guests: 4,186)

Online statistics

Members online
290
Guests online
4,186
Total visitors
4,476
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,554
Messages
17,954,811
Members
228,532
Latest member
GravityHurts
Back
Top