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

[Cherwell]

Here's an old article in the Daily Mail, which has a photo of a younger Helen with her husband.

 

[Joely 123]

I do NOT believe IS shall ever plead 'guilty' - I believe he may try to manoeuvre his Defence against the Prosecution .. but WHY would he ever confess to being to blame when he seems to think of himself as the victim. BUT - would love him to make it easier for Helen's family and friends ... and honour Helen in all she bestowed upon him before this terrible death of her and her beloved Boris.

 

[Joely 123]

Here's an old article in the Daily Mail, which has a photo of a younger Helen with her husband.

So beautiful - x

 

[DollyDiamond]

Beautifully written angle, Dolly Diamond, of how it is to be subjected to duping. Thank Goodness you came through and are here - but it must have been such a heartbreaking and self-diminishing time for you.
I was reading a part of Helen's book this afternoon when she first shared a weekend with her GGW and how she could eat again, and read the Sunday Papers after a terrible time of when she drank wine from a whisky glass, with her jacket still on, after an evening out. Where she kicked a dropped piece of shortbread across the kitchen - too in despair to lift it - and when she allowed Boris to jump onto her bed with muddy paws and couldn't care.Helen describes herself as a very exacting person - and so when she reached this point of Grief and natural 'Depression' - she was so open to attracting the very person who seemed right for her, and yet was the very person to avoid. (the last two lines I write with direct experience). Dear Helen - so kind and gracious towards Oliver and Jamie - weeping that she is there only because their Mother is not.
No wonder - apart from Justice - we are all deeply engaged here. And so grateful to all the accomplished Web Sleuths who, brilliantly, give us ongoing answers.

Bravo Joely, a really illuminating post. Isn't it ironic that when we are outwardly successful in so many areas of our lives, we can be at our most vulnerable to be taken advantage of by the individuals out there with darkness in their souls! You encapsulated so many of my feelings of hurt and anger for Helen and the disgusting, cruel injustice she suffered. One image that sticks in my mind was conjured up by one of IS sons in his evidence. He said on the Saturday evening before Helen's disappearance (murder) she made a cottage pie for them all. A dish so many of us routinely make for family and friends. And in my mind's eye I saw Helen chopping onions, wedding plans no doubt drifting through her thoughts, without even the vaguest inkling of her fiance's monstrous and now imminent plans to end her life. This male (I won't call him a man - he is not worthy of the term) should never walk freely among decent people again. I hope to God justice is done and he dies in prison.

 

[Duchy]

I think my memory is playing tricks. For some reason I thought IS first spent time with Helen a year after her husband's death. So did she start seeing him almost immediately after losing her husband?

I think I read that Ian proposed to her a year after JS death. He met her about 5 months after JS death. Must be up thread.

 

[Duchy]

I think my memory is playing tricks. For some reason I thought IS first spent time with Helen a year after her husband's death. So did she start seeing him almost immediately after losing her husband?

I think I read that Ian proposed to her a year after JS death. He met her about 5 months after JS death. Must be up thread.

 

[DollyDiamond]

I do NOT believe IS shall ever plead 'guilty' - I believe he may try to manoeuvre his Defence against the Prosecution .. but WHY would he ever confess to being to blame when he seems to think of himself as the victim. BUT - would love him to make it easier for Helen's family and friends ... and honour Helen in all she bestowed upon him before this terrible death of her and her beloved Boris.

I agree 100% he will never admit to what he has done or face up to the reality of who he is. To feign innocence with the clearly bogus story of third-party involvement is the only way he can lay claim to a shred of human decency - no matter how fanciful and ridiculous that course may be. If a psychopathic murderer is capable of caring about anyone other than himself, then it is possible he cares about his sons' view of him and won't totally tarnish that by confirming their worst fears. If he can give them even an atom of hope that he isn't a monster, by telling yet another pack of lies, he will do it. Of course it's entirely possible IS is so narcissistic and deluded he actually believes he can persuade a jury of his innocence. After all, he persuaded a highly intelligent, multi millionaire author he is a man worthy of marriage - perhaps after that he feels he is invincible. And if, as others have gently suggested, he was involved in foul play of any kind in the past and got away with it, this too could give him an inflated sense of power. I feel sure his Not Guilty plea will remain in place - the big question for me is whether or not he will decide to take the stand.

 

[Rayemonde]

I think I read that Ian proposed to her a year after JS death. He met her about 5 months after JS death. Must be up thread.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/9124746

about six months after John died, and at a time when life was so painful I was praying to spontaneously combust in the street rather than continue to live without him, something horrific happened in Marks & Spencer.

Whilst taking a shortcut through the women’s underwear department, out of the blue, I had a seriously X-rated thought about Ian, a widower I’d met through an online bereavement group...

The guilt over something I hadn’t yet done with a man I hadn’t yet met and who hadn’t even hinted at romance followed me everywhere, and when one morning my first thought wasn’t to look at the empty pillow next to me, but to grab my phone to see whether Ian had sent me a text, it plunged me into a spiral of despair and confusion.

When months later Ian and I eventually met, instead of a white horse, he turned up in a battered red Ford Mondeo estate with a Micky Mouse car aerial topper. ..

At first, I kept our relationship quiet, not through shame that I’d begun to date before the first anniversary of John’s death had passed (though this didn’t sit easily with me), but because if I had fallen in love too quickly with the wrong man I wanted to make that mistake in private.

 

[Tortoise]

Nooooooooo! I just typed a long post with fancy multi quotes and all, and it logged me out! <scream>

Ah well, perhaps it's telling me to b***** off. If I get the opportunity I will retype when I've calmed down (hopping mad now)

Before I go again I shall just say welcome to the new posters. Some fab and insightful new posts yesterday. Thank you!

 

[Squamous]

There's an tragic bit in her book about how the traits you appreciate in a partner when you're grieving can turn out to be suffocating further down the line. She is writing in the context of being sure that she avoided this pitfall, but given that it looks like she met her death through genuine suffocation it sent shivers down my spine.

As I said earlier, I still so hope that somehow IS could be innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of those who loved and trusted him. I can't see how it could be though.

 

[Florrie]

There's an tragic bit in her book about how the traits you appreciate in a partner when you're grieving can turn out to be suffocating further down the line. She is writing in the context of being sure that she avoided this pitfall, but given that it looks like she met her death through genuine suffocation it sent shivers down my spine.

As I said earlier, I still so hope that somehow IS could be innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of those who loved and trusted him. I can't see how it could be though.

I think I you've summed up my thoughts very well with regard to IS,for the sake of those who know and love him. I agree that it looks too cut and dried against him for that though.

Am wondering what this stuff in court today is about. Perhaps the judge saying to him "come on Mr Stewart, the evidence here against you is shocking, are you sure you don't wish to change your plea".

But then I guess they don't do that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mayfly.Aus]

The earlier speculation about IS's mental diagnosis - psychopath? narcissistic PD? etc triggered a couple of thoughts:

1. I understand that psychopathy alone isn't sufficient to establish a defence of "mental insanity". Though there's some debate among criminologists as to whether severe personality disorders should be included - psychopaths/sociopaths are a severe version of antisocial personality disorder - the current UK law test seems to be that if the person had the capacity to know that the conduct was wrong (eg wasn't suffering from delusions), then even if their personality disorder impaired their ability to control themselves to not act in that 'wrong' way, it doesn't amount to a defence of 'mental insanity'.

(This is an Australian link, but references the UK position http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/_files/P97-ch05.pdf see page 232)

2. This did cause me to speculate, however, whether there is a remote possibility IS could truly have suffered a mental event eg a psychotic break and accompanying delusions, perhaps triggered by PTSD from losing his first wife and the stress of his recent cancer scare. Could voices in his head have told him to drug HB and then finally do away with her etc. Would reconcile the very different version of his character we've heard from his wife's parents etc and from Helen herself. (I realise the 'false self' of a manipulative sociopath or narcissist also explains it...) Also may tie in with Helen's comment to her friend that the TLC was wearing thin in caring for IS - perhaps he was exhibiting genuinely new negative personality changes. Having some family experience with schizophrenia, people can experience a strong delusion in one aspect of their life, while still behave logically and function and come across normally in other aspects. Having said all that, I have no mental health qualifications and we are only seeing snippets of the person, but think the evidence indicates too much cold premeditation etc to be a true result of a mental delusion.

Separately on the drugging of Helen in advance I kind of see two general theories:

1. It ties into a potential diagnosis of a covert narcissist or similar and it was about the 'high' of secret control and damage to an otherwise impressive person and the eventual murder was either accidental or an escalation of that pathology; or

2. It was true cold, logical machiavellian planning - not just to make it easier to overpower her, but also to support the 'story' of her running off and disappearing. That 'story' becomes more believable if she's been acting strangely in the preceding months and third parties (such as her poor mother!) can give evidence of this being the case. In this version, the body was never to be found.

 

[Squamous]

I'd not considered that second option, although I would expect in that case for IS to be playing the concerned loving partner more than he was. That said, I suppose he wasn't about to start ringing the police at any point before he "had" to.

 

[mrazda71]

The earlier speculation about IS's mental diagnosis - psychopath? narcissistic PD? etc triggered a couple of thoughts:

1. I understand that psychopathy alone isn't sufficient to establish a defence of "mental insanity". Though there's some debate among criminologists as to whether severe personality disorders should be included - psychopaths/sociopaths are a severe version of antisocial personality disorder - the current UK law test seems to be that if the person had the capacity to know that the conduct was wrong (eg wasn't suffering from delusions), then even if their personality disorder impaired their ability to control themselves to not act in that 'wrong' way, it doesn't amount to a defence of 'mental insanity'.

(This is an Australian link, but references the UK position http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/_files/P97-ch05.pdf see page 232)

2. This did cause me to speculate, however, whether there is a remote possibility IS could truly have suffered a mental event eg a psychotic break and accompanying delusions, perhaps triggered by PTSD from losing his first wife and the stress of his recent cancer scare. Could voices in his head have told him to drug HB and then finally do away with her etc. Would reconcile the very different version of his character we've heard from his wife's parents etc and from Helen herself. (I realise the 'false self' of a manipulative sociopath or narcissist also explains it...) Also may tie in with Helen's comment to her friend that the TLC was wearing thin in caring for IS - perhaps he was exhibiting genuinely new negative personality changes. Having some family experience with schizophrenia, people can experience a strong delusion in one aspect of their life, while still behave logically and function and come across normally in other aspects. Having said all that, I have no mental health qualifications and we are only seeing snippets of the person, but think the evidence indicates too much cold premeditation etc to be a true result of a mental delusion.

Separately on the drugging of Helen in advance I kind of see two general theories:

1. It ties into a potential diagnosis of a covert narcissist or similar and it was about the 'high' of secret control and damage to an otherwise impressive person and the eventual murder was either accidental or an escalation of that pathology; or

2. It was true cold, logical machiavellian planning - not just to make it easier to overpower her, but also to support the 'story' of her running off and disappearing. That 'story' becomes more believable if she's been acting strangely in the preceding months and third parties (such as her poor mother!) can give evidence of this being the case. In this version, the body was never to be found.

Welcome &#9786;

I nominate you for post of the week &#127941;&#9786;

 

[cheeseman]

I agree 100% he will never admit to what he has done or face up to the reality of who he is. To feign innocence with the clearly bogus story of third-party involvement is the only way he can lay claim to a shred of human decency - no matter how fanciful and ridiculous that course may be. If a psychopathic murderer is capable of caring about anyone other than himself, then it is possible he cares about his sons' view of him and won't totally tarnish that by confirming their worst fears. If he can give them even an atom of hope that he isn't a monster, by telling yet another pack of lies, he will do it. Of course it's entirely possible IS is so narcissistic and deluded he actually believes he can persuade a jury of his innocence. After all, he persuaded a highly intelligent, multi millionaire author he is a man worthy of marriage - perhaps after that he feels he is invincible. And if, as others have gently suggested, he was involved in foul play of any kind in the past and got away with it, this too could give him an inflated sense of power. I feel sure his Not Guilty plea will remain in place - the big question for me is whether or not he will decide to take the stand.

I wonder if the discussions in court today may be to point out to IS that he has to take the stand if he wants to rely on this Nick and Joe tale, and if he doesn't he may as well plead guilty now as the judge would direct the jury this way in the event it concludes the way that it is presently going. This may also explain why the prosecution have been playing such a soft approach with their witnesses, they know that IS will dig himself into a big cess pit if he ever did take the stand.

 

[Moll]

I think I you've summed up my thoughts very well with regard to IS,for the sake of those who know and love him. I agree that it looks too cut and dried against him for that though.

Am wondering what this stuff in court today is about. Perhaps the judge saying to him "come on Mr Stewart, the evidence here against you is shocking, are you sure you don't wish to change your plea".

But then I guess they don't do that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They do do that - in a fraud case I followed closely,after the jury had been sworn in, the defendants and their lawyers were called in and told by the judge (I was told - I obviously wasn't there to hear exactly what was said) that the evidence against them was overwhelming and they should plead guilty. Most of them did, and they got a 25% discount on the sentence, which surprised me,as many months had been spent by Trading Standards already and many ordinary people who had been defrauded had been anxiously waiting to give evidence.

Not as serious a crime as this one, and earlier in the trial, but it shows that it does happen.

 

[Moll]

I'd not considered that second option, although I would expect in that case for IS to be playing the concerned loving partner more than he was. That said, I suppose he wasn't about to start ringing the police at any point before he "had" to.

I think that was what was so disconcerting about the 101 phone call. No warmth, intelligence or anxiety could be discerned in his voice. He was a lousy actor. And yet previously he managed to act a part convincingly,it seems.

 

[Moll]

At this stage it will gain him zero credit - the trial is too far gone already

My guess is he wont be changing any pleas.........although I cannot work out what the reason for tomorrow's court appearance is



eta :welcome: Moll

Thank you, Alyce!
I'm relieved to see you say that the trial is too far gone for him to get any credit if he did change his plea. We shall have to be patient till tomorrow, I suppose.

 

[Cherwell]

Just for reference, Stuart Hazell went on trial for the murder of Tia Sharp on 7 May 2013.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...2-New-Addington-Southeast-London-3-Aug-2012-5

He changed his plea to guilty on 13 May and was sentenced the next day to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 38 years before he can apply for parole. So it didn't do him much good.

 

[neteditor]

I'm following the trial and this discussion, but am now breaking my promise to myself to stay out of the conversation as I have a lot on in my life just now! I want to avoid the distraction.

However, wanted to say that there is no credit given to an early plea to murder. There is only one sentence for murder and that is life imprisonment (tariff decided by the judge based on the severity of the case).

IS might wish to lodge a guilty plea to manslaughter, but the prosecution does not have to accept that and can continue with the murder trial.

I haven't seen any evidence so far that would make me think he'll be submitting a manslaughter plea. That would be more likely for example if there had been evidence of some sort of fight where the fatal injuries could be argued as accidental or premeditated. You don't accidentally drug someone over the course of months, or accidentally plop them into the cesspit with the dog etc.

I imagine today's defence submissions will be more along the lines of whether certain evidence is agreed as admissable or maybe uncontended by both sides. Fairly boring stuff.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion, I'm grateful for all the updates, as I dip in after work in the evenings to catch up.