GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote Originally Posted by Alyce View Post

And also seems that either IS or Jamie cannot remember when Jamie's birthday is

IS Jamie’s birthday was on April 13,

Jamie During the week of April 11, dad rang me My birthday was a few weeks after.



I thought that odd too. Just one of a number of little incidences, which may or may not be important in the bigger picture, but you would have thought the legal teams would have checked all these gaffs.

To be generous to Jamie, it could be a mistake from nerves, and he meant to say that the snooker final was in a few weeks, but the tickets were for his upcoming birthday.

However, what day did IS call Jamie at work to tell him about the gift? It was referenced on an earlier thread. Was it the 13th? Even if it was, why not tell him in person?

 
I wondered if it was a journo error and he said 30th, not 13th.

Now that's interesting as Ollie has his full birth date (22/5/95) on his FB account, Jamie doesn't.

But, Jamie wrote this on 30th April 2012: Being 20 has been good so far!! Thanks for all the messages.

Very likely a journo error as you say Tortoise.

Off to bed here.
 
Nor am I.

This idiot! How can Helen have fallen for him? A fat, thick Gross Grey Haired Widower who shites over the bed, lays around in bed or on the sofa all day watching daytime TV, can't do anything physical, plays about inventing useless things......urgggh! Gross! What a waste of Helen. I hate him! Anyone who has spoken of him being charming needs to take a good long look at themselves. Poor Eileen, poor John, poor Tracey....I bet they are besides themselves.[/QUOTE

Well said! This odious berk should have been falling over himself with gratitude that Helen even agreed to date him, let alone marry him! She was kind, clever, funny, sociable, successful - all the things he was not. And he was so seething with envy and resentment, that he decided to take all her gifts away from her - including little Boris.

There was no logical reason for him to make the strange statement that Helen had 'a sewage phobia, except that he got a sly thrill from re-living the final indignity he had meted out to her. He has exposed himself for the walking, talking piece of human filth that he is and I can't wait to see the prosecution get hold of him.

Incidentally - just looked at the You Tube clip of Helen on Sky News from Oct 2015 and she appears to be wearing what I assume are her rings from JS on her right hand, and a ring on the middle finger of her left hand (can't be sure but doesn't look like an eternity ring to me). So this ring IS said he gave to her was never worn by Helen on her wedding finger and (if it existed at all) can't have been significant to her. The more his testimony is examined, the more it is found suspect. The prosecution have some fantastic material to work with and I pray they do it - and Helen - full justice.
 
To be generous to Jamie, it could be a mistake from nerves, and he meant to say that the snooker final was in a few weeks, but the tickets were for his upcoming birthday.

However, what day did IS call Jamie at work to tell him about the gift? It was referenced on an earlier thread. Was it the 13th? Even if it was, why not tell him in person?


It's pure conjecture on my part but I think there's something fishy about the phone call IS made to his son at work, the week of Helen's murder. IS had to provide an explanation of why he had rung Jamie, and he came up with the snooker birthday treat story. Doesn't ring true to me. We know IS was no cool customer and in the days following the execution of his murderous plan he'll have been in a pumped up, anxious state, full of adrenaline. Could that phone call have involved some discussion about Helen? I think so. But of course we'll never know.
 
13:03
'Helen helped me open the cess pit'

“I opened the cess pit in his absence. He told me to be very careful, I opened it up always with the help of Helen.

“Helen could get one side of it up, and I used a crowbar to kind of flip it.


The cesspit only needed to be pumped out every 3 years. Why would he ever need to open it, let alone with the aid of Helen? When it needed to pumped out, someone was hired to do it. Could his plan have been to accustom Helen to assist him in levering up the cover and when the timing was right, push her in?
 
The cesspit only needed to be pumped out every 3 years. Why would he ever need to open it, let alone with the aid of Helen? When it needed to pumped out, someone was hired to do it. Could his plan have been to accustom Helen to assist him in levering up the cover and when the timing was right, push her in?

I doubt very much that Helen ever assisted him in opening the cover. He's made that up.
 
No words! What a tragicomic farce. I know there's not much point picking holes, because as Dolly pointed out the story's one giant hole, but I can't help another one - so according to his earlier evidence (the phone call to report), IS arrived home just before 5pm on the Monday, then (I think) Oliver gets home around 5.30pm? So somehow, nasty Nick managed to grab the one half hour window in poor sick IS's packed afternoon to pay him a visit??

ok, ok, this is pointless. thank god he took the stand
 
i wonder if IS is doing all this tall tales in court thing, not because he thinks he's going to get off, but to keep up an act in the eyes of his sons and parents?? ie he can't let them see behind the mask, so they are the ones he is trying to convince with all this. He knows he's going down, but he wants them to believe well of him.

Struck me as odd that he mentioned the call to his parents that same night, when I don't see how it was relevant to the story (not one of his, 'see it must be true' details) and I don't think that call has come up elsewhere in the evidence? Is he explaining to them why he called them and didn't say anything that night, or is it more sinister - he let something slip to them and he's covering for them?
 
Hey net, ask OBF if there are any real tears. Keep reading about these emotional break downs in the witness box. I want to know if there are tears, oh and tissues.

and green bucket.
 
<RSBM>
Defence barrister Simon Russell Flint: “Had you been drugging Helen with anything in order to cause her to sleep for five hours?

Stewart: “No. She was getting better because things were getting better for us.”


And yet he said in his 999 call:

“She had talked about wanting space because things just haven’t been going well for her recently … or for us”.
 
Tesco CCTV images were not us"

“On Saturday, April 9, Helen and I went to Tesco. We were there that day, but those CCTV images (in jury bundle) were not us.

“We called the police because a fight was going on.”

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-trial-partner-ian-12573132

called the police - as you do of course when there's a store full of staff there to handle the problem

Called the police while in Tesco about a fight where he and Helen weren't involved or at risk but didn't call them when Nick and Joe came to his home and allegedly punched him in the stomach not long after his operation.

If pigs had wings ...
 
I think he has actually just confessed to cancelling a solicitor appointment on Helen's behalf because she was sleeping? It's just so dodgy. The normal thing to do in that situation would be to wake your partner up! He is digging that hole. Maybe Nick will turn up and offer to fill it back in for him.

Timothy Penn, the solicitor, testified:

“That was the first and only time I met Helen Bailey. My records showed that Helen was due to come into the office to see me on April 11, 2016, but my office was called and we heard that she would not be coming in because she was unwell".

Helen never told Tracey Stratton that she was feeling unwell that morning. This is yet another lie to explain why he called into the office later. "We heard" suggests that it was IS who made that call.
 
The prosecution must be pissing themselves

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a vision of both legal teams leaving the courtroom with completely bland expressions on their faces. They return to chambers …

Simon Russell Flint to his junior, “He’s totally *advertiser censored***d. I strongly advised him to plead guilty because the prosecution has a very strong case. I have bugger all to work with so I can only go through the motions and make Trimmer prove their case".

Trimmer to his junior, “This is going to be a walk in the park. He hasn’t got a snowflake’s chance in hell. Every time he opens his mouth he’s digging a bigger hole for himself. Let the games begin”.

There will be :fireworks: during XX.
 
<RSBM>
Helen generally got up first in the morning"

“Helen got so cross with herself and upset with driving. She went to Tesco, something to do with parking the Jeep upset her.

“She came in and said ‘I’m not doing that again’ but it was nothing major.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/helen-bailey-trial-partner-ian-12573132

Is this meant to be Monday April 11 ? if so, what happened to I'm never going to drive again...now it's been downgraded to nothing major

More lies.

PC Richard Webster attended in response to the missing person report.

“Stewart told me Helen had driven the Jeep to Tesco’s and had come back and said she was never driving again”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
3,517
Total visitors
3,680

Forum statistics

Threads
592,531
Messages
17,970,496
Members
228,797
Latest member
CrimeJunkie82
Back
Top