RECAP: Helen Bailey murder trial nearing its conclusion
Jury will go out soon to consider its verdict
Julian Makey
Tara Cox
The six week trial of Ian Stewart who is accused of murdering the children's author Helen Bailey is reaching its conclusion.
Prosecution and defence lawyers have been making their closing speeches and the judge is set to sum up before the jury start to consider their verdict early next week.
The trial, at St Albans Crown Court, has been told that Stewart, fiancé of the wealthy writer, allegedly slowly drugged her for months before killing her and dumping her body into a hidden underground cesspit at their £1.5 million Royston home.
Stewart, of Baldock Road, Royston, is accused of drugging Helen Bailey with the sleeping drug Zopiclone before carrying out the murder and concealing her body in the cesspit, together with her pet dog.
Helen Bailey murder trial: Accused either "devious killer" or "loving family man"
Helen Bailey murder trial: A timeline of events
Stewart denies murder, fraud, preventing a lawful burial and three counts of perverting the course of justice.
The 56-year-old said that two men named just Joe and Nick were responsible for the murder and disposal of Ms Bailey's body.
He told the court that he initially kept her kidnapping a secret because of threats to Ms Bailey and later his own sons.
Stewart also denied reducing Ms Bailey to a state on unconsciousness with Zopiclone before smothering her with a pillow.
Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer said Helen Bailey had been "grossly deceived" by Stewart whose account of a kidnapping had been "absurd".
But defence barrister Simon Russell Flint said Stewart had not been financially motivated, that the couple had been more than happy together and the prosecution had not given a sensible reason why Stewart would suddenly decide to kill Ms Bailey
Helen Bailey murder trial closes for the day
That's the end of the case for today. Jurors will meet again at 10am on Monday morning.
Judge Bright's summing up is expected to conclude on Monday afternoon, when jurors will retire to consider their verdict.
Jury reminded that the prosecution must make them sure of guilt
"You must consider the reason the defendant told you for remaining quiet - mainly due to threats to Ms Bailey and his sons from Joe and Nick.
"If he had a good defence and was told by his solicitor not to say anything, that is one thing. But if he stayed silent because he had no real defence to put forward, that is another.
"Do not convict a defendant simply because he made no comment. I must remind you that the burden remains on the prosecution to make you sure the defendant is guilty."
May be good reason for not mentioning facts to the police
He adds: "The defendant now relies on facts he failed to mention when he was arrested by police.
"There may be good reason for him not to mention these facts to police, and you must not hold this against him.
"But you must consider whether these facts are something the defendant concocted while awaiting trial for Helen Bailey's murder."
Stewart felt he needed to continue the lies
Judge Bright continues: "The defendant's explanation for this lie is that he said he was not thinking straight, because of the threats made by Nick, and after lying once he felt he needed to continue the lies.
"If you think there may be an innocent explanation of his lies then you should take no notice of them."
Do lies support case against Stewart?
He continues: "The defendant admitted in his evidence that he told lies to his friends, family and others about Helen Bailey's disappearance.
"The defendant accepts that Helen Bailey had not left him a note, but that he repeated this lie to her brother John, her friends, family and police that she had.
"You're asked to consider whether the repetition of lies in this way supports the case against him."
Judge reads out charges
Judge Bright is now reading out the indictment to jurors, listing the charges against Stewart.
Facts for jury to decide
He continues: "The case for the defendant on the other hand, was that two men called Joe and Nick were responsible for the murder and disposal of Helen Bailey's body, and that he was too frightened by the men to tell the police. "The facts exclusively are for you alone to decide."
Judge starts summing up
Addressing jurors, Judge Andrew Bright said: "The prosecution say there is overwhelming evidence that Helen Bailey was murdered by Ian Stewart when they were both alone in the house, and then lied to her friends, police and family that she had gone to Broadstairs and had gone away to escape the stresses in her life."
Hearing resumes
The case has been called back on. The judge is giving jurors a written copy of his legal directions.
Jury urged to 'be brave' as defence case closes before afternoon break
Addressing jurors, he says: "This is your chance. Please be strong, brave, don't just dismiss the evidence that excavates Stewart from responsibility for this terrible crime, don't be overwhelmed by the pressure and emotion of this ghastly case, please consider it, reflect upon it, and reach reasoned and true decisions, true verdicts according to the evidence.
"You will know if you deliver true verdicts that Stewart is not guilty of any one of the charges against him." That's the end of Mr Russell Flint's closing speech. There will now be a break until 3.20pm.
Prison attack
"Remember Stewart was attacked in prison, it's not something made up, it's there in the admissions."
Stewart a real risk of 'serious harm'
"On his arrest on July 11, when he shouted 'Jamie the garage door is open' he didn't know police were there. "He was only halfway down the stairs.
"He was then asking them where Helen was. Why couldn't police have said to him then 'there's no body'?
"Stewart told you repeatedly he was advised by his solicitor not to answer any questions.
"What could he have said to police, without exposing others and himself to that very real risk of serious harm?"
No scent of Helen picked up by dog
"Why was no scent picked up by the dog, if Helen had been for any measure of the time lying by the cess pit cover, while Stewart struggled with the opening of that cess pit, in presumably broad daylight in the morning of April 11?
"Nothing was picked up by the dog because she wasn't dead on April 19, or April 21, she wasn't in the cess pit on the day. Only later, maybe on April 26, when Nick and Joe returned, was she then put in the cess pit.
"Maybe then was she dead already, but not killed by Stewart. Is that not a possibility?"
Manhole cover was exposed for police to see
"If Stewart knew Helen was there [in the cess pit] and he was trying to conceal that fact, why did he not put her white Jeep over the cover to the pit before he called the police?
"When he called them eventually on April 15 and the first police officer arrived, that manhole cover was exposed for the world to see, to open, to peer into.
"This police officer said Stewart was helpful, gave full access around the house, and confirmed that on this day the Jeep was not in the garage obstructing any view of that manhole cover."
Cess pit 'last place' Stewart would have put Helen - defence
"Can you, having analysed the evidence, conclude you have no doubt it was Stewart who killed Helen and Boris, and dropped them so callously into that cess pit?
"Who was one of the first people Stewart would have known would have been asking him the question of 'where's Helen?'
"Her brother John, of course. Who would have been one of the most anxious people to find out where she was? John.
"Do you really truly believe that Stewart could thus have gone on to put the person he had killed in the very place that Helen's brother had been told, in his presence, would be a good place to hide a body?
"Really? Stewart might not have thought when he killed Helen that there was a possibility that John Bailey might have recalled that conversation?
"Yet still allegedly he was to dump her in that spot. It's crazy.
"It's the last place this intelligent man, if he had killer her, would have put her."
Something 'deep and spiritual' in Stewart
"Beware those opinions of Stewart expressed in hindsight of those difficult few months, after he was arrested, from those healthcare professionals, and even DC Daines and DC Lockwood.
"Yes Stewart might present a little oddly, but that is due to his illness myasthenia gravis.
"There must be something far more deep and spiritual in him for such a woman like Helen to have got past his physical frailness and quirks, and to love him as much as she did."
Wouldn't Stewart have come up with a better story is planning murder?
"If Stewart was going to murder Helen, wouldn't he have worked out firstly a better place to put her body, and secondly a better explanation of her disappearance to police?
"During all that time ,over all those months, was he 'not thinking through all his story', or did he know exactly what had happened as to Helen's abduction, but was too terrified to tell the police?"
Stewart in 'terrible nightmare' - jury told
"There was only a first name basis. It would be nice to provide more information about these men to police and say to them 'here you go, arrest them'.
"And let Stewart step away from this terrible nightmare that he's in. "Others are guilty, not him, and yet he's the one who is being prosecuted.
"But why didn't he mention Joe and Nick to police until late last year? "The Crown says this is because he's guilty of murder but does that really follow? Could there not be another reason for him not having mentioned before then?
"Because he was beaten, assaulted, attacked, threatened, told to act naturally otherwise she was at risk. "He acted as he did to protect her, and then to protect his children, the most natural thing in the world."
Names in husband's diaries
"It is clear that this matter hadn't died alongside John Sinfield and it wasn't over, there's an issue somewhere. "And low and behold there in John Sinfield's diaries are references to the two names that Stewart had claimed have been some sort of business associates of Mr Sinfield, and those who were responsible for Helen's abduction."
'Issues' over Helen's husband's death
"John Sinfield's business is not quite as presented. You might think that somewhere hidden away is an issue still rumbling along that relates to his untimely death in 2011.
"The issues with David Jensen, the lawyers involved - you might think that something doesn't add up. "Whatever the issues were, whatever it all amounts to, it's not something that can be dismissed by you as quickly as the Crown would have you do so. "In Helen's book there's a lot written about John Sinfield's secretiveness, how he was awake at night with stress.
"Two years later in 2010 he was still stressed, there were difficult times in their relationship.
"Helen said 'John Sinfield looked drained - he didn't know whether all the hassle with the company was worth it'. "Helen wrote
'It seems strange I can know someone for a quarter of a century and know so little about such a big part of their previous life'."
Sightings of author 'not fantasy'
"The sighting can't have been in March, as the prosecution were desperate for Mr Farmer to say, because the couple hadn't been to Broadstairs since January 2016.
"The sightings of Helen are not fantasy. It's not informed guesswork. It's actual fact, reality. "These witnesses are not wrong in what they say about Helen still being alive."
Helen Bailey seen in car after death date
"If you think Mr Farmer's observation of Helen in Broadstairs is correct, which we say undoubtedly is true, it drives yet another massive wedge into the speculative case of the prosecution, because they just cannot be right.
"Helen Bailey cannot have died on April 11 if she's in a Range R have diedover in Broadstairs in mid to late April."
Defence - 'pretty rich' evidence was not revealed
You might think it pretty rich, a complaint of things not mentioned by Mr Stewart, when the prosecution didn't reveal the existence of this crucial and vital piece of evidence of that compelling sighting until the very first day of this trial."
Broadstairs evidence only given to defence at start of trial
"Mr Farmer said there was no doubt in her mind it was Helen he had seen. "He told his wife. He repeated it to The Sun newspaper. He said it again to police. "A sighting in Broadstairs? The very place Joe was said to have met John Sinfield in?
"He said this sighting was mid April to the beginning of May. "So what happened to this material the prosecution didn't want to rely on, because it didn't fit their case?
"Was it given to the defence as it should have been? No, not until the first day of the trial."
Helen seen in Range Rover like Joe's
"So when did Helen Bailey die? Is Mr Farmer's evidence, the former cafe owner in Broadstairs, absurd?
"Is he deliberately trying to muddy the waters? He says he saw Helen Bailey alive and well in a car in Broadstairs four to six weeks before he gave a statement to police on July 13.
"Stewart said he saw Joe's car when he arrived at the Royston house in February 2016. What car was it? A dark Range Rover. "What car did Mr Farmer see Helen in? A black Range Rover."
Why keep router if trying to destroy evidence
"There is no evidence that there was no sim card in Helen's phone, or that Stewart had removed it.
"The logical explanation is that the phone battery expired, and then it wasn't switched on again until 1pm on Saturday April 16.
"It's not right for it to be asserted that the only way a phone would connect to wifi but not the network was if the sim card had been removed.
"We know all Stewart had to do was turn off the router in Broadstairs for it to lose its log. "We know Stewart wanted to use this router as a wifi extender at the Royston house.
"The first step of using a router like that as an extender is that you do a factory reset.
"Is there anything suspicious or unusual about this? If it was intended by Stewart to destroy evidence, why is it that he had that very same router in its box sitting beside his desk in his study in Royston?"
"Why doesn't the router end up in the tip as well?"
Helen asked for phone
Simon Russell Flint, defending Stewart, is continuing his closing speech. He is speaking about Friday April 15.
"That day arrives, as does Nick, but not with Helen.
"She's on the end of the telephone, said Stewart, apologising to him, telling him she loves him, but that she needs her phone. "Why? We can't possibly know.
"She was telling Stewart to do what Nick and Joe wanted him to do.
"Stewart was told he had to find Helen's phone, take it to Broadstairs, and not to tell police anything until after 3pm.
"The timing of the phone call to police reporting Helen missing was after 3pm."
Helen Bailey murder trial resumes
The case has now been called back on.
Stewart 'stuck' with lie, court told as hearing breaks for lunch
"Once Stewart had told the lie [of Helen going missing] he was stuck with it.
"Having told his sons on Tuesday, he was stuck with saying it to Helen's friends, to her brother.
"The lie was getting out of control, but he had to maintain the pretence and hope she would return as Nick had told him she would be." There will now be a lunch break until 2.05pm.
Jury asked how they would react if partner was threatened
"It's all very well to think about what Stewart should have done or might have done as we sit here nine months later in the cold light of day.
"Would you know what to do if a threat had been made to your partner's life, do you know how you would react?
"You can't honestly and truly say 'I would've called the police' not knowing what safety measures would be put in place to protect your partner.
"Press reports with a newsflash of 'famous author abducted from her own home', might have put her in that very jeopardy you wanted to avoid at all costs."