peter010101
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2017
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 0
GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #9
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
- Status
neteditor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 2,762
Oh he took the stand all right. I think we all suffered narcolepsy those days.
This bit struck me from moll's link - SRF should take note methinks :
Nothing is achieved by rambling on about the burden of proof and drifting aimlessly over a few bits of evidence. You will lose your audience. Remember that unlike a theatre audience they haven’t chosen to come and watch you, they have been forced to do so. They can’t get up and leave, nor can they usually heckle (although occasionally, and very disconcertingly, they write notes and pass them to the usher as you are speaking). Once they get bored with you their main way of showing their displeasure is to give their support to the other side. You will know if you have lost a jury’s attention. It will sit sullenly silent, not smiling, not frowning, just staring vacantly. You will have the devil’s own job to get them listening to you again.
Nothing is achieved by rambling on about the burden of proof and drifting aimlessly over a few bits of evidence. You will lose your audience. Remember that unlike a theatre audience they haven’t chosen to come and watch you, they have been forced to do so. They can’t get up and leave, nor can they usually heckle (although occasionally, and very disconcertingly, they write notes and pass them to the usher as you are speaking). Once they get bored with you their main way of showing their displeasure is to give their support to the other side. You will know if you have lost a jury’s attention. It will sit sullenly silent, not smiling, not frowning, just staring vacantly. You will have the devil’s own job to get them listening to you again.
hayaletcatcher
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 644
- Reaction score
- 371
No way! I was sure he wouldn't as he couldn't keep his lies straight. Anyone know what day this was? Argh I hate work getting in the way of trial following.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
peter010101
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2017
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 0
Your request for summary is optimally timed in fact, hayaletcatcher, coming as it does at the time of the judge's summing up (begun Friday, continuing today, to be concluded tomorrow).
BlueMosaic
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 3
The stories would have been hilarious if a lovely lady and her dog hadn't been wiped out, blowing a grenade into the lives of her loved ones.
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,236
- Reaction score
- 53,774
For Hayaletcatcher and anyone else who needs these links
Prosecution Closing Remarks
Thread 9
Page 77
Post 1152
Defence Closing Remarks
Thread 9
Page 31
Posts 457, 458, 459
Judge's Summing Up
Thread 9
Page 31 - post 461
Page 69 - Post 1027
Prosecution Closing Remarks
Thread 9
Page 77
Post 1152
Defence Closing Remarks
Thread 9
Page 31
Posts 457, 458, 459
Judge's Summing Up
Thread 9
Page 31 - post 461
Page 69 - Post 1027
neteditor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 2,762
Make sure you don't miss last Monday when Nick and Joe were brought into court. A lot of ladies' underwear was changed that day
I think IS gave evidence during Tuesday and Wednesday of the week before but I could be wrong. And no he couldn't keep his lies straight it was an insult to every juror's intelligence IMO.
ETA: In case of doubt I meant lots of my underwear, not lots of ladies. I can't speak for my learned friends here
Although I suspect therisenbishop favours a silk French design
flightpath
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 0
It's bugging me how HB spent so much time and effort making sure IS would be comfortable in event of her death... She was for healthy slim 51. Whereas he was the sick older disabled one. Isn't it odd???
flightpath
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 0
Spot on!!
neteditor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 2,762
I don't think it's odd, no. They had both lost their spouse's young and unexpectedly. Of course the spectre of losing another love of their life would loom lower than for aonther couple who hadn't suffered such bereavement. I think it was only natural that Helen prepared - I am sure she wrote in her blog about how much of a mess things were financially after JS died and she didn't want to put anyone through that again.
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,236
- Reaction score
- 53,774
This is the Prosecution Closing in full
Jury told they will judge 'what is true'
Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer is now starting his closing speech to jurors. Addressing jurors, he says: “We’re very close to the point when it really is up to you. Stewart’s guilt or innocence is determined by you. “You will judge what is true. You have it all in terms of the material that both sides take the view you need to make a decision.”
Crown says 'overwhelming' evidence against Stewart
“In very short terms the Crown say there is overwhelming evidence on which the Crown say, you must find Stewart guilty. “If you were to think to yourself ‘I am sure this defendant is a liar, an actor, and is telling us something that is simply not true’ then the next stage of that logic would be why is he lying to us? Why is he behaving like an actor? “The only answer to that is probably because he is guilty of these offences.”
Prosecutor says Stewart's account 'absurd'
“I would say his account is absurd. You have the narrow choice to choose whether it was this defendant who killed Helen Bailey, or Nick and Joe. “It’s not the whole world to choose from, it’s this defendant, or Nick and Joe. “Or if the Crown suggest you take the view that Nick and Joe are imaginary, who don’t have proper names, who don’t exist, and have been imagined to pull the wool over your eyes. “If Nick and Joe don’t exist, then it is this defendant who killed Helen Bailey.
Killing of Helen Bailey 'wicked'
Mr Trimmer adds: “The Crown say one thing you will have understood is that whoever did this, and the Crown say there is no doubt it was Ian Stewart, it was a wicked thing. “The killing was wicked, the disposal of the body is wicked, the way in which it was done and planned was wicked. “But you have to get past that notion and consider the facts.”
Killing of Helen Bailey was planned, prosecutor says
“The Crown say this was a wicked action. “It was a long plan. This defendant planned and set about the beginning, the middle, and the end of his plan. “This was a long plan involving poisoning. With it in mind that killing would follow, and with it in mind that he would get away with it. “Why he did it, we will never know. “He planned the beginning (the poisoning), the middle (the killing) and the end (the disposal). “It was not a coincidence that they stood by the cess pit and someone said ‘that would be a good place to hide a body’.”
Kidnappers putting body in cess pit 'absurd' - prosecutor
“The notion of Joe and Nick putting them in that cess pit is quite absurd. Why would the kidnapper bring the uninjured, drugged body of Helen Bailey back and put her in the pit? Why would all the places in the world would they choose that place? “They had no beef with Ian Stewart, they had no reason to frame him or to make his life difficult. “Why put the dog in that pit? Why would Nick and Joe want to go to the trouble of taking that dog, killing it, taking it back and putting it in that pit. “Why would they bother to take the dog’s toy back to that pit? “Nonsense isn’t it. Why would they want to put to put the pillow slip, the bin bags in that pit?”
Prosecutor asks why alleged kidnappers would risk returning body
“Why would Nick and Joe want to go back there at all? They know police are involved. Why go back to the place where police might turn up at any time, with presumably the body and the dog in the car? Why take the risk?”
Stewart 'nearly got away with it' - court told
“Nick and Joe don’t exist and didn’t do it. However, Ian Stewart on the other hand, what better place? And shortly he very nearly got away with it. “A little while longer, had the police not on July 15 made that final search of that cess pit, her body may have remained in that pit, sunk to the bottom and decomposed. “In a few years they might have found some bones. “Stewart’s acting, his sadness, his insistence she had gone away, his electronic records he left behind, all showed Helen had just run away. Showed a riff between lovers.”
Helen Bailey was 'grossly deceived'
“This defendant was intimate with Helen Bailey one month after they first met face to face. “It’s perfectly plain and you’ll see this in the extracts from her book, Helen was overwhelmed by love longing, absolutely besotted with him, the Gorgeous Grey Haired Widower. “It’s a matter of common sense that somebody shortly bereaved may not have the logical equipment to see they are being deceived. “The Crown say Helen Bailey was grossly deceived by somebody who was preying on her.”
Stewart would have inherited Helen Bailey's wealth after her death
“In 2012 there had been discussions about Helen’s wealth and making a will, because Ian Stewart signed the first 2012 will as a witness. “But if you sign a will as a witness you may not benefit from that will. “By 2014 Stewart had moved forward this far, Helen Bailey wanted to ensure by 2014 that even if she died before she got married, Stewart would be so well provided for he would be utterly comfortable for the rest of his life. “From 2012 to 2014, Stewart had achieved that milestone from Helen Bailey. He told you he had plenty of money and was well provided for, she didn’t think so. “She trusted Tony Hurley to abide by those wishes. “There’s no doubt that if she died after that will, all that under the will would have become Stewart’s.”
Prosecutor says Helen Bailed wanted to provide for Stewart
“Helen was so worried about his financial circumstances, that Stewart wouldn’t have to pay for the inheritance tax, so she took out a policy that if she died, there was sufficient money to pay the inheritance tax. “Ms Bailey was sufficiently taken by Stewart to make sure Stewart was sufficiently provided for.”
Increasing quantities of drug given to Helen
“Ms Bailey was given Zopiclone. She was having drugs ingested into her system in increasing concentration. “It doesn’t build up in her system, but the concentrations are increasing up to the point where she dies. “The suggestion that will be floated is that she took these drugs herself. “Why would she be taking them in increasing concentration? “That is the curious nonsense, especially you remember the evidence about how she felt. “Why would you bother talking to your mother about feeling very sleepy. if at the same time you are taking increasing concentrations of sleeping tablets? Bizarre nonsense. “This defendant had had Zopiclone prescribed to him on two separate occasions, he knew perfectly well the effects of that drug
Drug could have been put in scrambled egg
“Not only was there Zopiclone in Helen’s system but paracetamol. But what do those tablets look like? Ordinary tablets? Was he saying ‘got a headache love, want some paracetamol?’ “In addition, Stewart did cook Ms Bailey breakfast. “The result of taking Zopiclone is not that it tastes bad, but once you have ingested it the saliva has a metallic taste. “But it’s not the tablet that’s tasting bad or sharp, it’s the side effect. “There is nothing unreasonable in the notion that Stewart could have put Zopiclone in Helen’s scrambled egg.”
Mother knew Helen Bailey was not well, prosecutor says
“Helen’s mother knew she wasn’t well. The point is Helen spoke to her mother about sleeping during the day. Why? “If she’s taking the sleeping tablets herself why would speak to her mum about that? Nonsense. Stewart went to the doctor to get this Zopiclone in January. He was unwell, he wasn’t sleeping. He wanted a strong dose of a sleeping tablet. “He said ‘I go home, I show it to Helen Bailey, who immediately says to me you can’t take that’. “Did he go back to the doctor the next day? Did he say ‘you gave me the Zopiclone I asked for and had twice previously without difficulty, but I need another sleeping tablet now, these are no good’? He didn’t go back to the doctor, because this didn’t happen. “She didn’t confiscate them and where they went we don’t know. There is no evidence of the finding of the drugs packet.”
Cess pit hiding place for body had stuck with Stewart
“The words the cess pit ‘would be a good place to hide a body’ those words stuck, when this long plan was thought of. “The difficulty in taking bodies somewhere else is that it’s very difficult to avoid electronic footprint, prying eyes, people wondering what you’re doing. “All those are difficult. But your own garage, a deep well full of excrement and gravity assisted, is exactly that - a good place to hide a body.”
Stewart's parents' unexpected visit
“On April 4 there is a gap in Helen’s internet activity. There is a bigger period on April 8. “The Crown say that April 8 might have been the right time when Helen was stupefied and death could have taken place that day. except for this. “This defendant’s parents unexpectedly came round. “On April 11 when she was killed, there were phone calls from this defendant to his parents, to determine whether the same might happen again, whether they were going to come round that afternoon. “This is a deep laid long plan, and he wouldn’t want his parents disturbing what he was doing.”
Stewart 'thwarted once' court told
“This is the mind of a man whose long plan is poisoning, murder and disposal. “He’s been thwarted once possibly on April 4, but on April 8 he’s seen Helen looking why she was falling asleep. “Has he worked out she’s complaining to her mother? “What’s going to be the next thing she does? Pick up the phone to the doctor? “The doctor would do some routine blood tests, and find out that Zopiclone was in her blood. “Stewart couldn’t have that happen could he? He can’t have Helen taking that investigation into why she was sleepy further.”
Stewart 'on his own' with Helen on April 11
“The plan has to be now. This is a wicked man, the Crown say, and so we have him having to carry on. “On the weekend (April 9/10) there are people round. Friday proved fruitless. Monday (April 11) is looking good, The boys have gone out, he’s on his own with her all day. “That day his evidence is Helen was there in the morning, there up until the point that he goes out. “His evidence is that Helen was home, not out walking the dog.”
Author's electronic footprint changed - prosecutor
“Ms Bailey was actively doing what she was expected her to do. Her life was in internet activity, blogging, tweeting, emailing. “We’re going to see her electronic footprint changing. “It stops. Why? Why by about the middle of the afternoon on April 11 has Helen’s phone been switched off, or the sim card removed? “The Crown suggest the sim card has been removed, as it connected to the wifi at the Broadstairs house later on.”
Stewart was 'trying to create' text history
“We know that between 12.13pm and 3.18pm Helen’s phone is inactive. Why? Her electronic footprint stops, because this defendant has killed her and put her in that cess pit, and has removed the sim card from her phone. “Her electronic activity comes to a sudden, jarring halt. And there is no more activity thereafter. “The only activity thereafter is this defendant cunningly trying to create history in terms of texts as if she was able to access her phone
Helen Bailey was 'almost certainly dead'
“We know that between 12.13pm and 3.18pm Helen’s phone is inactive. Why? Her electronic footprint stops, because this defendant has killed her and put her in that cess pit, and has removed the sim card from her phone. “Her electronic activity comes to a sudden, jarring halt. And there is no more activity thereafter. “The only activity thereafter is this defendant cunningly trying to create history in terms of texts as if she was able to access her phone.”
Prosecutor questions why attempts to change standing order were made
“Stewart’s account is that they had to do some decoration, and the cost wa about £4,000, so why a new standing order? “Why a repetition every month of £4,000? Why is he doing that? “When those two attempts fail, the final one is successful, one to alter an existing standing order. But why would Helen be persistently trying to change this to £4,000?”
Money would have made Stewart 'comfortable'
“The defendant has to plan for what’s happening. What is going to happen if he kills Helen. “It’s going to be a while, probably months, before he can touch her money. “So a relatively modest change to a standing order is going to go unnoticed, he’s going to be comfortable until the whole thing has settled down. “It’s about little over twice than he was receiving ordinarily, and there is no explanation for it. “It was not to pay for the decoration.”
#helenbailey Prosecution: "This is the mind of a man whose long plan is poisoning, murder & disposal
Bank account changes made on on Stewart's computer
“He flatly denies that he altered Helen’s Barclays account, and that Helen must have done it. “But he’s asleep in the chair, in front of the computer. “So has she decided to do the decorations and changed the standing order sitting on his lap, on his computer? “The changes to the standing order are made on his computer, not hers. “His windows 10 machine. When that windows 10 machine is examined, the browsing history that would have showed Barclays access is gone. “There comes a limit to the idea of coincidence, doesn’t there? “The activity logs in the computer have disappeared as well. It may be that Windows 10 has disposed of the activity itself. “A horrible coincidence if that’s the case. “Of course you know Stewart is a computer engineer, he knows about computers.”
Sightings of Helen Bailey 'wrong' - Crown
“The Crown say the sightings of Helen are inaccurate, or wrong. “The first witness was of dog Helen walking, and there is that gap in her internet activity which would give time for Helen to walk the dog. “There may have been an occasion when she went walking the dog. That was one of the things she did in the early part of the morning.”
Evidence shows Stewart 'murdered Helen' - prosecutor says
“The second witness is a group, the mother and daughter, and we were not able to test what the daughter had to say. “That has the sighting of the dog walking later in the day. “People looking through net curtains for a short space of time...the Crown say this sighting of Helen is wrong. “The rest of the evidence demonstrates that this defendant murdered Helen. “All of the other evidence will lead you this conclusion at pretty much that time [of the sighting]. “If that’s right, then this sighting must be wrong.”
Witnesses who thought they saw Helen 'were wrong'
“No doubt well meaning people who thought they’d seen Helen were looking to help police to find her. “But they were wrong. “The third witness was well meaning, well intentioned, but wrong. “She first thought her sighting of Helen was 11am, then 4pm in the afternoon. “She says she used the car on this day because it was raining. “At 3pm thereabouts we see that this defendant was at Royston waste disposal site, it was not raining. “The woman said she couldn’t remember the last time she had driven to Royston. “Well meaning, but wrong.”
Court takes a break until noon
“And finally Mr Farmer, who says he saw Helen driving in Broadstairs. “In the middle of April if the defendant is right, Nick and Joe have Helen in their clutches and they’re trying to extract information from her worth half a million pounds. “Is she going to be seen in Broadstairs, in a large black Range Rover, driving it when she didn’t like driving much, on her own, yards from her own house [in Broadstairs]. “Had the kidnappers just let her go? The word absurd springs to mind. “This is activity presented to you to muddy the waters. They do not demonstrate that Helen was alive and well late afternoon in the middle of April. “Mr Farmer doesn’t know if this [sighting of Helen] is March, April or May.” There will now be a short break until 12noon.
Trip to tip 'really significant'
Case back on. Stuart Trimmer continues: “The tip is really significant. Why the second time, why visit again on April 13? “On April 11, there’s a lot of activity at this tip, a lot of cars moving about and people moving around. “Fortunately for us we have camera shots clearly showing this defendant carting a box which appears to have a white object in it up the stairs, and then also carrying a separate box later on up the stairs. “He has a dilemma here, why the second visit on Wednesday April 13? What’s the purpose of that? “The Crown suggest that if at the desk where Helen was, she had become unconscious or sleepy, and has been without much mess, suffocated there, it’s a matter of two minutes work taking her body out round the corner, while sliding her body on the duvet. “It’s reasonably hidden from your neighbours there. Are there her body fluids on that duvet? Had she vomited? Something you wouldn’t want to leave behind? “What about the pillow, was that put over her face?”
Prosecutors says 'no doubt' Stewart was a liar
“This is all in his mind, and there is no doubt that Stewart is a liar. The words that he said, from the first time he spoke about it on April 12 to his sons, right until there was a change in November when he spoke to his solicitors, he ran with lie number one. “Lie number one had a number of assets to it that were very important. It wasn’t a simple white lie, this is a very black lie, a wicked lie, a cruel lie. “To his sons, to his girlfriend’s brother who sits behind me, he spins the lie. “To everybody he comes across, to policeman of all ranks to the operator on the phone when he calls, to a host of community workers, to all the dog walkers, to all those good-hearted people who wanted to find Helen Bailey, he lies. “He leads them to believe Helen had just gone, gone to Broadstairs, that she wanted space and didn’t wanted to be contacted. “Careful and clever, isn’t it?”
Stewart acted out story
“The impression that he left was that there was some difficulty and Helen wanted to be on her own. “Wanted to be on her own where her first husband and her spent some time. “Stewart acted this thing out, and he laid it on his face.”
Dog had to go
“The dog has got to go. If Helen’s gone, the dog has got to go. There is no way unless she’d made arrangements, that Helen would go without the dog. “If lie number one is going to work the dog has to go. That perfectly shortly and cruelly is why that dog may been lured down that pit with a toy. Somehow, the dog had to go. It could not stay.”
Kidnappers Nick and Joe 'don't exist' - jury told
“Anybody with an ounce of common decency, if there had been a kidnapping and if Joe and Nick had taken Helen away to sort out a problem, what would you do? “When you got police on the phone, speak to a senior officer. “‘I really must deal with this, is there any chance you could send a detective round to speak to me?’ “Is this defendant stupid? Does he not understand life? Of course he does. “When you say it to police are they going to advertise the fact it was a kidnapping? Clearly not. “Nick are Joe don’t exist. They are a much later invention, invented sometime after his arrest and when he spoke to his solicitor.”
Account was 'woolly at the edges'
“What dispute was there out there that was worth killing for? “Worth killing Helen Bailey for? What were they after? A piece of paper or file? “The beauty of this invented tale is that it’s woolly at the edges.”
Helen Bailey gave up dispute over money owed to husband
“John Sinfield [Helen’s former husband] may have had a complicated life, and complicated business dealings, but that stopped when he died years ago and it had never risen its head again since. “There appeared to be some loose end at the end of his business where he was owed money, his estate was owed money, not the other way around. “So if anyone was going to go chasing it would have been his estate chasing a small sum of money, much less than £100,000. “The unchallenged evidence was that Helen Bailey gave up this dispute because the lawyers were costing too much. “That’s the sea around where this defendant had woven this tale. “This tale doesn’t see the light of day until December 13.”
Prosecutor says Stewart a 'full blown liar'
“You can’t bring on tears very easily. What was happening here was a man [Stewart] who was apparently sad, and to some people he laid that on thickly. The note. It simply didn’t exist, but it’s purpose was important. Without it you wouldn’t have a focus for the tale. “But the note had ‘gone missing’. But it must go, because if it stayed and was handwritten the first thing people would be thinking of doing would be looking at it. “You’re asked to trust this man’s word that Nick and Joe existed, and he is without doubt, a full blown liar.”
Depths of the lying is 'significant' court hears
“Police found Stewart odd. Stewart is telling you, that the real truth is that these people have kidnapped Helen. But in these [police] interviews he was calm, and in no sense concerned. “No sense saying ‘get out there and find her’. “In the interview Stewart said he had this memory of Helen saying goodbye to him, but it’s then suggested Helen was out walking the dog. You can’t have it both ways. “The depths of the lying is significant.”
Helen Bailey's killing 'brought forward'
“The important thing in his mind is the reason he had to do away with Helen, and her killing was brought forward because she was beginning to be aware of the fact that she was being drugged. “He saw the Mumsnet internet searches, and in his head that’s a significant thing.” Mr Trimmer points out that in Stewart’s police interview he mentioned Helen was into ‘forums, like Mumsnet and things like that’. “Why did that pop into his head?” Mr Trimmer asks the jury
Stewart accused of creating a picture of Helen Bailey's disappearance
“The whole picture is building up and Stewart is creating this picture that Helen has just gone. “He tells police about significant places Helen might go - Brighton, Broadstairs. “The officer then hits the nail on the head, and if it were you and me, or anyone else with common sense, what would be the response to this? “Police ask: ‘Is there anything that you suspect there might be a third party involved in Helen’s disappearance?’ “Stewart said ‘someone mentioned kidnapping, she has got enough money to be a target.’ “Police ask him ‘you’ve not received any ransom notes, no one has made any demands?’ “Stewart answers ‘no, definitely not’.
Stewart described as a 'plain, practiced liar' by prosecution
“Police ask him ‘’have you had any new visitors?’ “Stewart said ‘no, no-one springs to mind’. “You can watch him on this interview if you like, and you will see a plain, practiced liar, and an actor.”
Changed story over scrambled eggs
“In his interview, Stewart tells police ‘I’ve done Helen scrambled eggs’ on the morning of April 11. “He then later said he didn’t.”
Stewart accused of 'setting up' Helen Bailey's Broadstairs visit
“This [next point] is one of the most obvious demonstrations of a creation of a story. “This is setting up a tale. “The tale that he’s run with from the moment he spoke is that Helen has gone to Broadstairs. “He is saying ‘She is my lover, I am the Gorgeous Grey Haired widower’. “But by now according to his account, Helen’s phone has gone. It is with her kidnappers. “He goes down to Broadstairs and that is when Helen’s phone connects to the wifi router on April 16. “At this point according to his account, the phone is still in the house and he’s texting Helen ‘*advertiser censored*’. “Despite the apparent threat from Nick and Joe, he just sends these three letters. No frantic plea to the kidnappers. “Those three letters stick with the notion that Helen has just left. “And then it all goes a bit dead.”
Prosecutor says Stewarts story thwarted when her body was found
“A text to John Bailey, Helen’s brother ‘please tell me when you speak to Helen, even if she tells me not to’. “He’s running with the lie. He doesn’t say to John ‘some kidnappers have got her, shall we sort it out?’ “Another text to John Bailey ‘are you there? [in Broadstairs] How is Helen?’. “Why would he write that? It’s a nice touch, intending to enhance the lie that he’s running with, and would have run with forever, if Helen had not been found.”
Stewart 'not clever enough' - court told
“He was clever, but not clever enough. Because he took that [Helen’s] phone to Broadstairs, but although the SIM card was gone, the phone wasn’t on the network, the wireless router picked this phone up. “This may be one of the reasons why this defendant comes to the place he is now.”
Phone records would look like Stewart was 'trying his best' to find Helen
“By this stage, he texts Helen, saying ‘please please call’. “On his account as he writes that Helen is with the kidnappers and he’s given her phone to them. “What is the purpose of saying that? Why do it? The only reason is to create an electronic record which is consistent with the lover his girlfriend who’s walked out the door. He then texts her and says ‘I have respected your wishes long enough, You have had enough space and time. Just let me know you’re OK. Love you more’. “If Helen Bailey was never found and someone looks at the records years later, this shows that Stewart was trying his best to find Helen.”
Court takes lunch break
“Stewart then texts Helen’s phone and says ‘police won’t tell me where you are if you don’t want them to. They can stop all the fuss’. “Why write that? The kidnappers have apparently got the phone, so why would he be texting that phone this text? “This is to reinforce the impression that his lover has walked out the door. The only reason he’s writing this is to cover his tracks.” There will now be a break until 2.05pm.
The case resumes
The case has been called back on. There is now one further agreed fact in the case to be read to jurors.
The agreed fact is: “DS Graham Paul examined Helen Bailey’s iPad for the term zopiclone and myasthenia gravis.
“He also searched for reductions of these terms. None of the terms could be found in the searches on the device.
“The internet search history of the device dated March 30 and April 19.”
Prosecution continues closing speech
Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer is continuing his closing speech.
“The Crown say Helen Bailey’s phone was later disposed of where it would never be found. It couldn’t be tracked, because there was no sim card in it.
“On July 11 bodycam footage showed police arriving at Stewart’s house.
“Some of the phrases during his arrest are important. Stewart is told in formal terms he is arrested for murder, and fraud.
“He says ‘you’re joking?’. This man knows Helen is apparently with kidnappers threatening her life.”
If Nick and Joe were true he knows the woman he allowed to be kidnapped is now dead'
Mr Trimmer continues: “Stewart has been arrested for murder. If Nick and Joe were true, he knows the woman he allowed to be kidnapped was now dead.
“Stewart sat on the stairs and said ‘bloody hell why? What happened?’ but he does understand. According to him he knows full well where she is - with the supposed kidnappers.
“He then says ‘Have you found Helen? Where is she? I don’t know why the garage door is open’. Why in that moment of crisis does the garage pop into his head? That’s the least he should be concerned about.”
What he didn't say on his arrest was anything about Nick, Joe, zoplicone, about a reward'
“This is the mind of the man who has now been arrested for murder, he’s entitled not to answer questions, and can sit there and say nothing.
“But the words of the caution effectively say beware if you don’t answer the questions now, some time down the line if in court you tell a story, the jury might well think you made it up.
“And I suggest that’s exactly what you should think.
“What he didn’t say on his arrest was anything about Nick, Joe, zopiclone, about a reward.
“None of that he now tells you is true.
“The Crown say he is hiding behind his legal advice.”
He ought to have said: ' I'm going to get those people. I don't care what they'll do to me'."
“He would have still run with lie number one, but he is released on bail until July 12.
“He can’t live in the house anymore because searches go on until July 15.
“He has to stay in a hotel, along with his two sons.
“On July 15, police find Helen’s body, the dog’s body and the other things in the cesspit, and Stewart is arrested again.
“His sons are nearby, he knows where they are.
“There’s no doubt now that Helen Bailey is not only dead, but somebody has put her in the cesspit full of excrement, together with the dog, the toy, pillow slip and some bin bags.
“The woman he spent all that time with is now without doubt dead, and has been dealt with in the most awful fashion. That ought to be enough, for him to say ‘I’m going to get those people, I don’t care what they’ll do to me’.
“He said he couldn’t tell police about Nick and Joe because of threats to his two sons. His sons were in a hotel that day.
“But he said nothing at all”.
She was sitting at her desk with no shoes on when she was smothered'
“You saw how carefully Helen’s body was taken out of the pit, by the side so it came out as far as possible, in the condition it went in. “So Nathaniel Cary, the pathologist, can tell you what he found.
“But he didn’t find much at all. There were no broken bones, no obvious bruises, nothing there which showed she had been beaten, had her legs or arms broken, or had her head stoved in. She had no shoes on.
“Nick and Joe had dealt with her so carefully when they killed her had they?
“Stewart told you that Nick and Joe showed him how they would deal with Helen by putting a hand round his neck.
“By this time he had seen the pathologist’s report, saying that he couldn’t exclude that Helen was smothered.
“Why was she wearing no shoes? Because she was sitting at her desk with no shoes on. And she was smothered and taken as she was, to that cesspit.”
This tales becomes utterly absurd'
“Lie number two begins to emerge on November 16, and 21, through the defence case statement. “The Crown say the defence case statement was late because Stewart was bereaving away, filling the statement with every part he could of this tale he had made up. “But in order to do so this tale becomes utterly absurd.
“This tale involves people called Nick and Joe, who have no names beyond that, it involves kidnappers who exposed themselves to the defendant - there was no need to do that, because according to this defendant they knew his phone number.
“Why would they bother to risk coming to the house?”
Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs and why would they want Helen's phone?'
“These people have to have Stewart go to Broadstairs, because by now Stewart knows the phone has been seen in Broadstairs.
“Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs, and why would they want Helen’s phone?
“What can that phone have in it in any value to Nick and Joe? It first went on the network in 2011.
“John Sinfield died before 2011.
“The only purpose of weaving that into the story is to get the phone to the router in Broadstairs.”
This is a full-blown, straightforward lie'
“The kidnappers just happened upon someone taking zopiclone in increasing quantities? It’s absurd.
“This defendant has two good friends called Nick and Joe. They may or may not look like his story of Nick and Joe.
“Stewart struggled to remember what he was talking about, giving the name Dave at one stage.
“If you’re going to pull out something from your mental filing cabinet it’s easy to pull out a name, and stick with a name you actually know.
“This is a full blown, straightforward lie.”
Why was there no mention of compensation or sleeping drugs in defence case statement?'
“In the defence case statement, there is no mention of half a million pounds required in compensation.
“How can it be that you forget that?
“And zopiclone is central to the prosecution allegation against him. How can you forget that Helen Bailey searched for it, told him he couldn’t take it, took it off him, and said she’d take it herself?
“How does the defendant forget that?
“He said the reason zopiclone wasn’t in the defence case statement was because he didn’t think it was relevant.”
The tale beyond this becomes so absurd that a child who wrote it in his essay aged 11 might be laughed at by the rest of his class'
“The tale beyond this becomes so absurd that a child who wrote it in his essay aged 11 might be laughed at by the rest of his class. “What we have is Stewart in custody, somebody attacks him and says ‘don’t snitch’ which he takes to mean not to tell police about what had actually happened.
“So have Nick and Joe got the entirety of Bedford Prison under control?
“A little while later, somebody comes with an illicit phone inside the prison.
“On the other end is someone who says ‘sorry about Helen’. Do kidnappers do that?
“And some time later ‘you need not worry about Joe he has been dealt with. You can tell police what happened’.
“It’s your judgement not mine, but this is total fantasy.”
Kate Bradbrook ‏@katebradbrook 48s49 seconds ago
#helenbailey Prosecution rests its case claiming Ian Stewart's story a "heist of lies...he is a devious killer
Why would Nick and Joe want to kill Helen and Boris?'
“One of the most powerful questions for a jury to ask of a story or tale or piece of evidence is why? I suggest you ask that question.
“Why was Helen killed if Nick and Joe took her? What would that achieve?
“She had no access to anything very much, she couldn’t find anything.
“Stewart was not asked to get anything, There were no demands made.
“They didn’t say ‘we’ll kill her unless you do this’.
“Don’t all kidnappers do that?
“Why was Boris killed? Why didn’t they just leave him? They didn’t need to take him at all.
“What was the toy in the cesspit? Why the pillow slip? Because they were part of the killing of Helen Bailey.”
Stewart is 'quite simply, a devious killer'
“Stewart is the Gorgeous Grey Haired Widower. You’ve seen him, heard his story, how he came into contact with Helen, how she changed her entire wealth structure in his favour.
“And you’ve heard a host of lies from the defendant.
“He is quite simply, a devious killer.”
Jury told they will judge 'what is true'
Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer is now starting his closing speech to jurors. Addressing jurors, he says: “We’re very close to the point when it really is up to you. Stewart’s guilt or innocence is determined by you. “You will judge what is true. You have it all in terms of the material that both sides take the view you need to make a decision.”
Crown says 'overwhelming' evidence against Stewart
“In very short terms the Crown say there is overwhelming evidence on which the Crown say, you must find Stewart guilty. “If you were to think to yourself ‘I am sure this defendant is a liar, an actor, and is telling us something that is simply not true’ then the next stage of that logic would be why is he lying to us? Why is he behaving like an actor? “The only answer to that is probably because he is guilty of these offences.”
Prosecutor says Stewart's account 'absurd'
“I would say his account is absurd. You have the narrow choice to choose whether it was this defendant who killed Helen Bailey, or Nick and Joe. “It’s not the whole world to choose from, it’s this defendant, or Nick and Joe. “Or if the Crown suggest you take the view that Nick and Joe are imaginary, who don’t have proper names, who don’t exist, and have been imagined to pull the wool over your eyes. “If Nick and Joe don’t exist, then it is this defendant who killed Helen Bailey.
Killing of Helen Bailey 'wicked'
Mr Trimmer adds: “The Crown say one thing you will have understood is that whoever did this, and the Crown say there is no doubt it was Ian Stewart, it was a wicked thing. “The killing was wicked, the disposal of the body is wicked, the way in which it was done and planned was wicked. “But you have to get past that notion and consider the facts.”
Killing of Helen Bailey was planned, prosecutor says
“The Crown say this was a wicked action. “It was a long plan. This defendant planned and set about the beginning, the middle, and the end of his plan. “This was a long plan involving poisoning. With it in mind that killing would follow, and with it in mind that he would get away with it. “Why he did it, we will never know. “He planned the beginning (the poisoning), the middle (the killing) and the end (the disposal). “It was not a coincidence that they stood by the cess pit and someone said ‘that would be a good place to hide a body’.”
Kidnappers putting body in cess pit 'absurd' - prosecutor
“The notion of Joe and Nick putting them in that cess pit is quite absurd. Why would the kidnapper bring the uninjured, drugged body of Helen Bailey back and put her in the pit? Why would all the places in the world would they choose that place? “They had no beef with Ian Stewart, they had no reason to frame him or to make his life difficult. “Why put the dog in that pit? Why would Nick and Joe want to go to the trouble of taking that dog, killing it, taking it back and putting it in that pit. “Why would they bother to take the dog’s toy back to that pit? “Nonsense isn’t it. Why would they want to put to put the pillow slip, the bin bags in that pit?”
Prosecutor asks why alleged kidnappers would risk returning body
“Why would Nick and Joe want to go back there at all? They know police are involved. Why go back to the place where police might turn up at any time, with presumably the body and the dog in the car? Why take the risk?”
Stewart 'nearly got away with it' - court told
“Nick and Joe don’t exist and didn’t do it. However, Ian Stewart on the other hand, what better place? And shortly he very nearly got away with it. “A little while longer, had the police not on July 15 made that final search of that cess pit, her body may have remained in that pit, sunk to the bottom and decomposed. “In a few years they might have found some bones. “Stewart’s acting, his sadness, his insistence she had gone away, his electronic records he left behind, all showed Helen had just run away. Showed a riff between lovers.”
Helen Bailey was 'grossly deceived'
“This defendant was intimate with Helen Bailey one month after they first met face to face. “It’s perfectly plain and you’ll see this in the extracts from her book, Helen was overwhelmed by love longing, absolutely besotted with him, the Gorgeous Grey Haired Widower. “It’s a matter of common sense that somebody shortly bereaved may not have the logical equipment to see they are being deceived. “The Crown say Helen Bailey was grossly deceived by somebody who was preying on her.”
Stewart would have inherited Helen Bailey's wealth after her death
“In 2012 there had been discussions about Helen’s wealth and making a will, because Ian Stewart signed the first 2012 will as a witness. “But if you sign a will as a witness you may not benefit from that will. “By 2014 Stewart had moved forward this far, Helen Bailey wanted to ensure by 2014 that even if she died before she got married, Stewart would be so well provided for he would be utterly comfortable for the rest of his life. “From 2012 to 2014, Stewart had achieved that milestone from Helen Bailey. He told you he had plenty of money and was well provided for, she didn’t think so. “She trusted Tony Hurley to abide by those wishes. “There’s no doubt that if she died after that will, all that under the will would have become Stewart’s.”
Prosecutor says Helen Bailed wanted to provide for Stewart
“Helen was so worried about his financial circumstances, that Stewart wouldn’t have to pay for the inheritance tax, so she took out a policy that if she died, there was sufficient money to pay the inheritance tax. “Ms Bailey was sufficiently taken by Stewart to make sure Stewart was sufficiently provided for.”
Increasing quantities of drug given to Helen
“Ms Bailey was given Zopiclone. She was having drugs ingested into her system in increasing concentration. “It doesn’t build up in her system, but the concentrations are increasing up to the point where she dies. “The suggestion that will be floated is that she took these drugs herself. “Why would she be taking them in increasing concentration? “That is the curious nonsense, especially you remember the evidence about how she felt. “Why would you bother talking to your mother about feeling very sleepy. if at the same time you are taking increasing concentrations of sleeping tablets? Bizarre nonsense. “This defendant had had Zopiclone prescribed to him on two separate occasions, he knew perfectly well the effects of that drug
Drug could have been put in scrambled egg
“Not only was there Zopiclone in Helen’s system but paracetamol. But what do those tablets look like? Ordinary tablets? Was he saying ‘got a headache love, want some paracetamol?’ “In addition, Stewart did cook Ms Bailey breakfast. “The result of taking Zopiclone is not that it tastes bad, but once you have ingested it the saliva has a metallic taste. “But it’s not the tablet that’s tasting bad or sharp, it’s the side effect. “There is nothing unreasonable in the notion that Stewart could have put Zopiclone in Helen’s scrambled egg.”
Mother knew Helen Bailey was not well, prosecutor says
“Helen’s mother knew she wasn’t well. The point is Helen spoke to her mother about sleeping during the day. Why? “If she’s taking the sleeping tablets herself why would speak to her mum about that? Nonsense. Stewart went to the doctor to get this Zopiclone in January. He was unwell, he wasn’t sleeping. He wanted a strong dose of a sleeping tablet. “He said ‘I go home, I show it to Helen Bailey, who immediately says to me you can’t take that’. “Did he go back to the doctor the next day? Did he say ‘you gave me the Zopiclone I asked for and had twice previously without difficulty, but I need another sleeping tablet now, these are no good’? He didn’t go back to the doctor, because this didn’t happen. “She didn’t confiscate them and where they went we don’t know. There is no evidence of the finding of the drugs packet.”
Cess pit hiding place for body had stuck with Stewart
“The words the cess pit ‘would be a good place to hide a body’ those words stuck, when this long plan was thought of. “The difficulty in taking bodies somewhere else is that it’s very difficult to avoid electronic footprint, prying eyes, people wondering what you’re doing. “All those are difficult. But your own garage, a deep well full of excrement and gravity assisted, is exactly that - a good place to hide a body.”
Stewart's parents' unexpected visit
“On April 4 there is a gap in Helen’s internet activity. There is a bigger period on April 8. “The Crown say that April 8 might have been the right time when Helen was stupefied and death could have taken place that day. except for this. “This defendant’s parents unexpectedly came round. “On April 11 when she was killed, there were phone calls from this defendant to his parents, to determine whether the same might happen again, whether they were going to come round that afternoon. “This is a deep laid long plan, and he wouldn’t want his parents disturbing what he was doing.”
Stewart 'thwarted once' court told
“This is the mind of a man whose long plan is poisoning, murder and disposal. “He’s been thwarted once possibly on April 4, but on April 8 he’s seen Helen looking why she was falling asleep. “Has he worked out she’s complaining to her mother? “What’s going to be the next thing she does? Pick up the phone to the doctor? “The doctor would do some routine blood tests, and find out that Zopiclone was in her blood. “Stewart couldn’t have that happen could he? He can’t have Helen taking that investigation into why she was sleepy further.”
Stewart 'on his own' with Helen on April 11
“The plan has to be now. This is a wicked man, the Crown say, and so we have him having to carry on. “On the weekend (April 9/10) there are people round. Friday proved fruitless. Monday (April 11) is looking good, The boys have gone out, he’s on his own with her all day. “That day his evidence is Helen was there in the morning, there up until the point that he goes out. “His evidence is that Helen was home, not out walking the dog.”
Author's electronic footprint changed - prosecutor
“Ms Bailey was actively doing what she was expected her to do. Her life was in internet activity, blogging, tweeting, emailing. “We’re going to see her electronic footprint changing. “It stops. Why? Why by about the middle of the afternoon on April 11 has Helen’s phone been switched off, or the sim card removed? “The Crown suggest the sim card has been removed, as it connected to the wifi at the Broadstairs house later on.”
Stewart was 'trying to create' text history
“We know that between 12.13pm and 3.18pm Helen’s phone is inactive. Why? Her electronic footprint stops, because this defendant has killed her and put her in that cess pit, and has removed the sim card from her phone. “Her electronic activity comes to a sudden, jarring halt. And there is no more activity thereafter. “The only activity thereafter is this defendant cunningly trying to create history in terms of texts as if she was able to access her phone
Helen Bailey was 'almost certainly dead'
“We know that between 12.13pm and 3.18pm Helen’s phone is inactive. Why? Her electronic footprint stops, because this defendant has killed her and put her in that cess pit, and has removed the sim card from her phone. “Her electronic activity comes to a sudden, jarring halt. And there is no more activity thereafter. “The only activity thereafter is this defendant cunningly trying to create history in terms of texts as if she was able to access her phone.”
Prosecutor questions why attempts to change standing order were made
“Stewart’s account is that they had to do some decoration, and the cost wa about £4,000, so why a new standing order? “Why a repetition every month of £4,000? Why is he doing that? “When those two attempts fail, the final one is successful, one to alter an existing standing order. But why would Helen be persistently trying to change this to £4,000?”
Money would have made Stewart 'comfortable'
“The defendant has to plan for what’s happening. What is going to happen if he kills Helen. “It’s going to be a while, probably months, before he can touch her money. “So a relatively modest change to a standing order is going to go unnoticed, he’s going to be comfortable until the whole thing has settled down. “It’s about little over twice than he was receiving ordinarily, and there is no explanation for it. “It was not to pay for the decoration.”
#helenbailey Prosecution: "This is the mind of a man whose long plan is poisoning, murder & disposal
Bank account changes made on on Stewart's computer
“He flatly denies that he altered Helen’s Barclays account, and that Helen must have done it. “But he’s asleep in the chair, in front of the computer. “So has she decided to do the decorations and changed the standing order sitting on his lap, on his computer? “The changes to the standing order are made on his computer, not hers. “His windows 10 machine. When that windows 10 machine is examined, the browsing history that would have showed Barclays access is gone. “There comes a limit to the idea of coincidence, doesn’t there? “The activity logs in the computer have disappeared as well. It may be that Windows 10 has disposed of the activity itself. “A horrible coincidence if that’s the case. “Of course you know Stewart is a computer engineer, he knows about computers.”
Sightings of Helen Bailey 'wrong' - Crown
“The Crown say the sightings of Helen are inaccurate, or wrong. “The first witness was of dog Helen walking, and there is that gap in her internet activity which would give time for Helen to walk the dog. “There may have been an occasion when she went walking the dog. That was one of the things she did in the early part of the morning.”
Evidence shows Stewart 'murdered Helen' - prosecutor says
“The second witness is a group, the mother and daughter, and we were not able to test what the daughter had to say. “That has the sighting of the dog walking later in the day. “People looking through net curtains for a short space of time...the Crown say this sighting of Helen is wrong. “The rest of the evidence demonstrates that this defendant murdered Helen. “All of the other evidence will lead you this conclusion at pretty much that time [of the sighting]. “If that’s right, then this sighting must be wrong.”
Witnesses who thought they saw Helen 'were wrong'
“No doubt well meaning people who thought they’d seen Helen were looking to help police to find her. “But they were wrong. “The third witness was well meaning, well intentioned, but wrong. “She first thought her sighting of Helen was 11am, then 4pm in the afternoon. “She says she used the car on this day because it was raining. “At 3pm thereabouts we see that this defendant was at Royston waste disposal site, it was not raining. “The woman said she couldn’t remember the last time she had driven to Royston. “Well meaning, but wrong.”
Court takes a break until noon
“And finally Mr Farmer, who says he saw Helen driving in Broadstairs. “In the middle of April if the defendant is right, Nick and Joe have Helen in their clutches and they’re trying to extract information from her worth half a million pounds. “Is she going to be seen in Broadstairs, in a large black Range Rover, driving it when she didn’t like driving much, on her own, yards from her own house [in Broadstairs]. “Had the kidnappers just let her go? The word absurd springs to mind. “This is activity presented to you to muddy the waters. They do not demonstrate that Helen was alive and well late afternoon in the middle of April. “Mr Farmer doesn’t know if this [sighting of Helen] is March, April or May.” There will now be a short break until 12noon.
Trip to tip 'really significant'
Case back on. Stuart Trimmer continues: “The tip is really significant. Why the second time, why visit again on April 13? “On April 11, there’s a lot of activity at this tip, a lot of cars moving about and people moving around. “Fortunately for us we have camera shots clearly showing this defendant carting a box which appears to have a white object in it up the stairs, and then also carrying a separate box later on up the stairs. “He has a dilemma here, why the second visit on Wednesday April 13? What’s the purpose of that? “The Crown suggest that if at the desk where Helen was, she had become unconscious or sleepy, and has been without much mess, suffocated there, it’s a matter of two minutes work taking her body out round the corner, while sliding her body on the duvet. “It’s reasonably hidden from your neighbours there. Are there her body fluids on that duvet? Had she vomited? Something you wouldn’t want to leave behind? “What about the pillow, was that put over her face?”
Prosecutors says 'no doubt' Stewart was a liar
“This is all in his mind, and there is no doubt that Stewart is a liar. The words that he said, from the first time he spoke about it on April 12 to his sons, right until there was a change in November when he spoke to his solicitors, he ran with lie number one. “Lie number one had a number of assets to it that were very important. It wasn’t a simple white lie, this is a very black lie, a wicked lie, a cruel lie. “To his sons, to his girlfriend’s brother who sits behind me, he spins the lie. “To everybody he comes across, to policeman of all ranks to the operator on the phone when he calls, to a host of community workers, to all the dog walkers, to all those good-hearted people who wanted to find Helen Bailey, he lies. “He leads them to believe Helen had just gone, gone to Broadstairs, that she wanted space and didn’t wanted to be contacted. “Careful and clever, isn’t it?”
Stewart acted out story
“The impression that he left was that there was some difficulty and Helen wanted to be on her own. “Wanted to be on her own where her first husband and her spent some time. “Stewart acted this thing out, and he laid it on his face.”
Dog had to go
“The dog has got to go. If Helen’s gone, the dog has got to go. There is no way unless she’d made arrangements, that Helen would go without the dog. “If lie number one is going to work the dog has to go. That perfectly shortly and cruelly is why that dog may been lured down that pit with a toy. Somehow, the dog had to go. It could not stay.”
Kidnappers Nick and Joe 'don't exist' - jury told
“Anybody with an ounce of common decency, if there had been a kidnapping and if Joe and Nick had taken Helen away to sort out a problem, what would you do? “When you got police on the phone, speak to a senior officer. “‘I really must deal with this, is there any chance you could send a detective round to speak to me?’ “Is this defendant stupid? Does he not understand life? Of course he does. “When you say it to police are they going to advertise the fact it was a kidnapping? Clearly not. “Nick are Joe don’t exist. They are a much later invention, invented sometime after his arrest and when he spoke to his solicitor.”
Account was 'woolly at the edges'
“What dispute was there out there that was worth killing for? “Worth killing Helen Bailey for? What were they after? A piece of paper or file? “The beauty of this invented tale is that it’s woolly at the edges.”
Helen Bailey gave up dispute over money owed to husband
“John Sinfield [Helen’s former husband] may have had a complicated life, and complicated business dealings, but that stopped when he died years ago and it had never risen its head again since. “There appeared to be some loose end at the end of his business where he was owed money, his estate was owed money, not the other way around. “So if anyone was going to go chasing it would have been his estate chasing a small sum of money, much less than £100,000. “The unchallenged evidence was that Helen Bailey gave up this dispute because the lawyers were costing too much. “That’s the sea around where this defendant had woven this tale. “This tale doesn’t see the light of day until December 13.”
Prosecutor says Stewart a 'full blown liar'
“You can’t bring on tears very easily. What was happening here was a man [Stewart] who was apparently sad, and to some people he laid that on thickly. The note. It simply didn’t exist, but it’s purpose was important. Without it you wouldn’t have a focus for the tale. “But the note had ‘gone missing’. But it must go, because if it stayed and was handwritten the first thing people would be thinking of doing would be looking at it. “You’re asked to trust this man’s word that Nick and Joe existed, and he is without doubt, a full blown liar.”
Depths of the lying is 'significant' court hears
“Police found Stewart odd. Stewart is telling you, that the real truth is that these people have kidnapped Helen. But in these [police] interviews he was calm, and in no sense concerned. “No sense saying ‘get out there and find her’. “In the interview Stewart said he had this memory of Helen saying goodbye to him, but it’s then suggested Helen was out walking the dog. You can’t have it both ways. “The depths of the lying is significant.”
Helen Bailey's killing 'brought forward'
“The important thing in his mind is the reason he had to do away with Helen, and her killing was brought forward because she was beginning to be aware of the fact that she was being drugged. “He saw the Mumsnet internet searches, and in his head that’s a significant thing.” Mr Trimmer points out that in Stewart’s police interview he mentioned Helen was into ‘forums, like Mumsnet and things like that’. “Why did that pop into his head?” Mr Trimmer asks the jury
Stewart accused of creating a picture of Helen Bailey's disappearance
“The whole picture is building up and Stewart is creating this picture that Helen has just gone. “He tells police about significant places Helen might go - Brighton, Broadstairs. “The officer then hits the nail on the head, and if it were you and me, or anyone else with common sense, what would be the response to this? “Police ask: ‘Is there anything that you suspect there might be a third party involved in Helen’s disappearance?’ “Stewart said ‘someone mentioned kidnapping, she has got enough money to be a target.’ “Police ask him ‘you’ve not received any ransom notes, no one has made any demands?’ “Stewart answers ‘no, definitely not’.
Stewart described as a 'plain, practiced liar' by prosecution
“Police ask him ‘’have you had any new visitors?’ “Stewart said ‘no, no-one springs to mind’. “You can watch him on this interview if you like, and you will see a plain, practiced liar, and an actor.”
Changed story over scrambled eggs
“In his interview, Stewart tells police ‘I’ve done Helen scrambled eggs’ on the morning of April 11. “He then later said he didn’t.”
Stewart accused of 'setting up' Helen Bailey's Broadstairs visit
“This [next point] is one of the most obvious demonstrations of a creation of a story. “This is setting up a tale. “The tale that he’s run with from the moment he spoke is that Helen has gone to Broadstairs. “He is saying ‘She is my lover, I am the Gorgeous Grey Haired widower’. “But by now according to his account, Helen’s phone has gone. It is with her kidnappers. “He goes down to Broadstairs and that is when Helen’s phone connects to the wifi router on April 16. “At this point according to his account, the phone is still in the house and he’s texting Helen ‘*advertiser censored*’. “Despite the apparent threat from Nick and Joe, he just sends these three letters. No frantic plea to the kidnappers. “Those three letters stick with the notion that Helen has just left. “And then it all goes a bit dead.”
Prosecutor says Stewarts story thwarted when her body was found
“A text to John Bailey, Helen’s brother ‘please tell me when you speak to Helen, even if she tells me not to’. “He’s running with the lie. He doesn’t say to John ‘some kidnappers have got her, shall we sort it out?’ “Another text to John Bailey ‘are you there? [in Broadstairs] How is Helen?’. “Why would he write that? It’s a nice touch, intending to enhance the lie that he’s running with, and would have run with forever, if Helen had not been found.”
Stewart 'not clever enough' - court told
“He was clever, but not clever enough. Because he took that [Helen’s] phone to Broadstairs, but although the SIM card was gone, the phone wasn’t on the network, the wireless router picked this phone up. “This may be one of the reasons why this defendant comes to the place he is now.”
Phone records would look like Stewart was 'trying his best' to find Helen
“By this stage, he texts Helen, saying ‘please please call’. “On his account as he writes that Helen is with the kidnappers and he’s given her phone to them. “What is the purpose of saying that? Why do it? The only reason is to create an electronic record which is consistent with the lover his girlfriend who’s walked out the door. He then texts her and says ‘I have respected your wishes long enough, You have had enough space and time. Just let me know you’re OK. Love you more’. “If Helen Bailey was never found and someone looks at the records years later, this shows that Stewart was trying his best to find Helen.”
Court takes lunch break
“Stewart then texts Helen’s phone and says ‘police won’t tell me where you are if you don’t want them to. They can stop all the fuss’. “Why write that? The kidnappers have apparently got the phone, so why would he be texting that phone this text? “This is to reinforce the impression that his lover has walked out the door. The only reason he’s writing this is to cover his tracks.” There will now be a break until 2.05pm.
The case resumes
The case has been called back on. There is now one further agreed fact in the case to be read to jurors.
The agreed fact is: “DS Graham Paul examined Helen Bailey’s iPad for the term zopiclone and myasthenia gravis.
“He also searched for reductions of these terms. None of the terms could be found in the searches on the device.
“The internet search history of the device dated March 30 and April 19.”
Prosecution continues closing speech
Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer is continuing his closing speech.
“The Crown say Helen Bailey’s phone was later disposed of where it would never be found. It couldn’t be tracked, because there was no sim card in it.
“On July 11 bodycam footage showed police arriving at Stewart’s house.
“Some of the phrases during his arrest are important. Stewart is told in formal terms he is arrested for murder, and fraud.
“He says ‘you’re joking?’. This man knows Helen is apparently with kidnappers threatening her life.”
If Nick and Joe were true he knows the woman he allowed to be kidnapped is now dead'
Mr Trimmer continues: “Stewart has been arrested for murder. If Nick and Joe were true, he knows the woman he allowed to be kidnapped was now dead.
“Stewart sat on the stairs and said ‘bloody hell why? What happened?’ but he does understand. According to him he knows full well where she is - with the supposed kidnappers.
“He then says ‘Have you found Helen? Where is she? I don’t know why the garage door is open’. Why in that moment of crisis does the garage pop into his head? That’s the least he should be concerned about.”
What he didn't say on his arrest was anything about Nick, Joe, zoplicone, about a reward'
“This is the mind of the man who has now been arrested for murder, he’s entitled not to answer questions, and can sit there and say nothing.
“But the words of the caution effectively say beware if you don’t answer the questions now, some time down the line if in court you tell a story, the jury might well think you made it up.
“And I suggest that’s exactly what you should think.
“What he didn’t say on his arrest was anything about Nick, Joe, zopiclone, about a reward.
“None of that he now tells you is true.
“The Crown say he is hiding behind his legal advice.”
He ought to have said: ' I'm going to get those people. I don't care what they'll do to me'."
“He would have still run with lie number one, but he is released on bail until July 12.
“He can’t live in the house anymore because searches go on until July 15.
“He has to stay in a hotel, along with his two sons.
“On July 15, police find Helen’s body, the dog’s body and the other things in the cesspit, and Stewart is arrested again.
“His sons are nearby, he knows where they are.
“There’s no doubt now that Helen Bailey is not only dead, but somebody has put her in the cesspit full of excrement, together with the dog, the toy, pillow slip and some bin bags.
“The woman he spent all that time with is now without doubt dead, and has been dealt with in the most awful fashion. That ought to be enough, for him to say ‘I’m going to get those people, I don’t care what they’ll do to me’.
“He said he couldn’t tell police about Nick and Joe because of threats to his two sons. His sons were in a hotel that day.
“But he said nothing at all”.
She was sitting at her desk with no shoes on when she was smothered'
“You saw how carefully Helen’s body was taken out of the pit, by the side so it came out as far as possible, in the condition it went in. “So Nathaniel Cary, the pathologist, can tell you what he found.
“But he didn’t find much at all. There were no broken bones, no obvious bruises, nothing there which showed she had been beaten, had her legs or arms broken, or had her head stoved in. She had no shoes on.
“Nick and Joe had dealt with her so carefully when they killed her had they?
“Stewart told you that Nick and Joe showed him how they would deal with Helen by putting a hand round his neck.
“By this time he had seen the pathologist’s report, saying that he couldn’t exclude that Helen was smothered.
“Why was she wearing no shoes? Because she was sitting at her desk with no shoes on. And she was smothered and taken as she was, to that cesspit.”
This tales becomes utterly absurd'
“Lie number two begins to emerge on November 16, and 21, through the defence case statement. “The Crown say the defence case statement was late because Stewart was bereaving away, filling the statement with every part he could of this tale he had made up. “But in order to do so this tale becomes utterly absurd.
“This tale involves people called Nick and Joe, who have no names beyond that, it involves kidnappers who exposed themselves to the defendant - there was no need to do that, because according to this defendant they knew his phone number.
“Why would they bother to risk coming to the house?”
Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs and why would they want Helen's phone?'
“These people have to have Stewart go to Broadstairs, because by now Stewart knows the phone has been seen in Broadstairs.
“Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs, and why would they want Helen’s phone?
“What can that phone have in it in any value to Nick and Joe? It first went on the network in 2011.
“John Sinfield died before 2011.
“The only purpose of weaving that into the story is to get the phone to the router in Broadstairs.”
This is a full-blown, straightforward lie'
“The kidnappers just happened upon someone taking zopiclone in increasing quantities? It’s absurd.
“This defendant has two good friends called Nick and Joe. They may or may not look like his story of Nick and Joe.
“Stewart struggled to remember what he was talking about, giving the name Dave at one stage.
“If you’re going to pull out something from your mental filing cabinet it’s easy to pull out a name, and stick with a name you actually know.
“This is a full blown, straightforward lie.”
Why was there no mention of compensation or sleeping drugs in defence case statement?'
“In the defence case statement, there is no mention of half a million pounds required in compensation.
“How can it be that you forget that?
“And zopiclone is central to the prosecution allegation against him. How can you forget that Helen Bailey searched for it, told him he couldn’t take it, took it off him, and said she’d take it herself?
“How does the defendant forget that?
“He said the reason zopiclone wasn’t in the defence case statement was because he didn’t think it was relevant.”
The tale beyond this becomes so absurd that a child who wrote it in his essay aged 11 might be laughed at by the rest of his class'
“The tale beyond this becomes so absurd that a child who wrote it in his essay aged 11 might be laughed at by the rest of his class. “What we have is Stewart in custody, somebody attacks him and says ‘don’t snitch’ which he takes to mean not to tell police about what had actually happened.
“So have Nick and Joe got the entirety of Bedford Prison under control?
“A little while later, somebody comes with an illicit phone inside the prison.
“On the other end is someone who says ‘sorry about Helen’. Do kidnappers do that?
“And some time later ‘you need not worry about Joe he has been dealt with. You can tell police what happened’.
“It’s your judgement not mine, but this is total fantasy.”
Kate Bradbrook ‏@katebradbrook 48s49 seconds ago
#helenbailey Prosecution rests its case claiming Ian Stewart's story a "heist of lies...he is a devious killer
Why would Nick and Joe want to kill Helen and Boris?'
“One of the most powerful questions for a jury to ask of a story or tale or piece of evidence is why? I suggest you ask that question.
“Why was Helen killed if Nick and Joe took her? What would that achieve?
“She had no access to anything very much, she couldn’t find anything.
“Stewart was not asked to get anything, There were no demands made.
“They didn’t say ‘we’ll kill her unless you do this’.
“Don’t all kidnappers do that?
“Why was Boris killed? Why didn’t they just leave him? They didn’t need to take him at all.
“What was the toy in the cesspit? Why the pillow slip? Because they were part of the killing of Helen Bailey.”
Stewart is 'quite simply, a devious killer'
“Stewart is the Gorgeous Grey Haired Widower. You’ve seen him, heard his story, how he came into contact with Helen, how she changed her entire wealth structure in his favour.
“And you’ve heard a host of lies from the defendant.
“He is quite simply, a devious killer.”
Hi janeh : I take your point, I was only referring to Disability Allowance though - I know nothing about ESA.
Higher rate DLA would be approx £80. per week and Mobility Allowance Higher Rate nearly £60. pw. Not liable for tax.
Of course there are other allowances awarded for people under pension age, as IS is. I am not familiar with these.
Whatever allowances he got I don't think he was really eligible, except in his own mind !!
ETA Could he have been claiming Attendance Allowance also? Wouldn't put anything past him.
DollyDiamond
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 43
Yes it's extremely odd and suggests a prolonged campaign of gas lighting behind the scenes as in:
"I feel so insecure in this relationship, if you were selfish enough to die first then poor little poverty stricken me and my vulnerable, dependant (adult) sons could be sleeping on the streets, living on scraps and (assuming I was strong enough to lift one) selling the Big Issue".
That Helen was rushing around amending her old will to favour IS before they were even married smacks of HUGE manipulation by IS. I wonder if her brother and close friends suspected he was a gold digger? I wonder if anyone voiced any concerns to her about IS' motives?
I've always thought so. People explained it in terms of the recent death of John Sinfield, or her own blood pressure, but it still seemed surprising to me.
It is so unbelievably heartbreaking Flighty. I think Helen was just really kind and caring. Having gone through bereavement herself and having to sort the financial aspect herself, she didn't want IS to go through unnecessary hard work.
neteditor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 2,762
I know it's well OT but this is absolutely hilarious http://barristerblogger.com/2017/01/04/sir-ivan-rogers-next-called-criminal-bar/
Yes, that's another good bit - and Michelle said the jury appeared totally unconvinced and fed up (or wtte) with RF's long ramblings.
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,475
- Reaction score
- 16,453
No, I don't think it's odd either.
People die in road accidents all the time, never mind the more unusual accidents like the one that took her husband. People also get struck down unexpectedly by fatal illnesses such as cancer at any age.
What I think is odd is the assumption that you won't die unless you are either aged or have a known illness NOW.
- Status