Friday, March 3, 2017

Helen Bailey: Missing Person Police Call

Here we see how even in the initial police call to report a missing person, a deceptive subject gives away the information needed. 

Investigators who are trained in detecting deception, never dismiss anyone as a "liar" but recognizes that even from liars, the reliable information comes out. 

Before an investigation even begins, those trained can know the truth.   

Ian Stewart’s initial call to Police

P: Hertfordshire police, how can I help?

I.S: Hello there, my partner has been missing since Monday and not contacted anyone. Said she was going away, hasn’t gone... ended up where she said she was going, so I’m... we’ve just decided we should report it.

a.  We do not expect a missing person's call to begin with a greeting.  The greeting is seen not only as a lack of urgency, but within analysis, it is called the "ingratiating factor"; that is, one may wish to 'ingratiate' oneself into law enforcement.  This is the same as saying, "I am a good guy", which is unnecessary. 

Some examples:

DeOrr Kunz spoke more about Search and Rescue, in detail, than about his missing son. 

He both thanked and praised them for not finding DeOrr jr.  

b.  Who is this "we" that he speaks of?  

c.  Why did they "just" (timing) decide to call?

This may be a desire to be seen as timely, that is, that he called right away.  It is a signal of delay, instead.  

d.  to "decide" indicates both hesitation and discussion, which may have included debate.  Why?

e.  "so":  he feels the need to explain why he made the call, though he uses the plural without expiation.  The making of this phone call is very sensitive to the caller.  

P: What’s your partner’s name?

I.S: Helen Bailey

 I.S: She left a note, she said in the note something like, I need sp, space and time alone. I’m going to Broadstairs, please don’t contact me in any way. But in Br, Broadstairs she’s got, we’ve got a a cottage down there but we s, people have been down there with neighbours and she hasn’t, she’s not there. I haven’t been there either.

a.  "like":  with a missing persons report, we expect him to read the note --or recite it from memory. 


The elevated importance. 

The note would likely have been read by the subject repeatedly, especially during the 'discussion' as to whether or not to call police.  

"Like" is a classification and may reflect his 'interpretation' rather than what she wrote.  

Wrote:  a note is written.  In his language, he did not say she "wrote" but said that she "said in the note."  This is a minor difference, yet it is here and we must consider the possibility that she did not "write" this note.  Although readily verified, the analyst remains open to varying possibilities brought on by the language itself.  We listen; we do not interpret.  

b.  "we've got a cottage down there":  if the pronoun "we" is about he and the missing person, there is unity. 

The unity must be understood in context:  of having a cottage.  

c.  "I haven't been there, either" is an unnecessary statement.  Unnecessary information is very important.  

The location of the cottage is now sensitive.  

She is missing. 

He is not. 

He is on the phone and it is part of his priority to tell them where he was not

It may be that police sensed this, intuitively:  

P: And someone’s been to the cottage?

I.S: Someone’s been to the cottage, yeah. Her brother went there.

P: Does it look like anyone had been there?

I.S: No. No, we.. no, someone went in and it d, d, doesn’t look like anyone’s been there.

This sounds awkward to the ear.  Deception often does.  "Someone" (not her brother?) went in, he affirms, but it does not "look" (appearance) like "anyone's" been there.  

P: Did Helen go in a vehicle?

I.S: No she didn’t, she left her car here. She did take her dog with her. She’s got a little Dachshund but she would get there by train or she she could possibly take a taxi. She does do that sort of thing.

P: And was that note a bit of a shock, were you expecting it at all?

Here, we don't know what prompted this question.  He said he had a note.  

I.S: No I wasn’t... well, yes it was a shock. She had talked about it but er it was still a shock. She has talked about wanting space as things just haven’t been going well for her recently or for us.

P: Ok, so she mentioned wanting space but she had never actually acted on it, she’s not left before?

I.S: She’s never done anything like this before, no.

Not, "she's never left before" but "done anything like this"; what did she "do" that caused this language?

P: And what’s her date of birth?

I.S: Oh crikey, gosh, you’ve thrown me there… 22nd, right, just let me double check, one second, oh God, sorry. Can you still hear me?

Note inclusion of:

a.  Divinity
b.  "sorry"

P: I can still hear you, yeah.

I.S: I am sorry, I am just double checking, 22nd August 1964. Sorry, my just brain just went. Sorry.

The word "sorry" has entered his language four times during a call to police about his missing fiancé.  

Not only is it important (once) but repetition tells us the importance of it is elevated. 

Believe him. 

He is sorry.  

When someone repeats often how sorry he is, we should believe him.  

P: And her eye colour?

I.S: Her eye colour? Oh my God, how do you forget these things? Sorry, God, that’s terrible.


a. answering a question with a question
b.  Divinity repetition 
c.  "you" distancing language consistent with forgetting her eye color. 
d.  "sorry" again.  

P: Are there any specific concerns, suicide or self harm, anything like that?

I.S: Well, I, I, would say no but she has, she has been very very anxious and very worried about lots of things and she is a very, she is a worrier… she is a she is a natural worrier.

P: This may sound silly, but she’s definitely not at home no?

I.S: No. (inaudible) I, I’ve literally checked everywhere. We have got quite a large house and I have literally checked everywhere.

With the cottage, the pronoun "we" was produced between him and the victim. 

Here, the "large house" also produces the same unity.  

I.S: And her phone is just dead, it not, when I say dead it just, it just doesn’t ring.

Note "dead" repeated and the need to explain the meaning of "dead" 

P: She said nothing to you then, was she leaving the premises at the time?

I.S: No, no, she was… I left her here.

I.S: At some point I saw the note on my desk from Helen

 Remember how the note from Helen "said" (spoke) rather than what she wrote?

Here, he tells us who the note is from:  from Helen.

Would we even have thought the note may have been from someone other than Helen in a call to police about a missing person who left behind a note??

This is another linguistic indication that the "note" may not have been written by Helen.  

P: From what I understand, from what we’ve discussed is that Helen was last seen on Monday 11th April. We’d like you to take me through what happened that day.

Great question!!

Here is where we get our information:  

Where a missing person was last seen to a partner engaged is hormonally heightened.  Listen carefully to his language.  

A truthful person will tell us what happened. We can only tell what we do remember.  

Be on alert when one tells us what did not happen, what they cannot remember, what was not said, and so on.  

I.S: This is where I can’t remember very well. 

The number one form of deception is missing information.  Yet when one speaks, not remembering is high on the list.  

a.  "this" is very up close.  The event is hormonally etched upon the brain.  We have seen signals of anxiety in his language. 

b.  It is at "this" place (not "that") where he can't remember.  He is placing himself close to the place where he stretched out time but can't remember...

c.  "very well."  He remembers, but just not 'very' well. 

This is an example of the internal stress of direct lying and why one attempts to qualify to avoid such stress. 

I’ll tell you what I can remember.

This is an unnecessary and important statement.  A person can only tell what a person remembers.  Here he is withholding information about the last time he saw Helen. 

Here is where professionals recognize: 

When one is deceptive and speaking about what happened, he is very likely to yield much valuable and critical information: 

 She went out in the car just to get some milk or something,

Instead of saying "she went out to her car" (note placing her at the car), he anticipates police asking, "Why did she go out to the car?"

This may not have been asked by police or anyone else without specific training. 

He, himself, is worried that when he places her out at her car, the police are going to say, "Well, why did she go to the car?"

The more innocuous or 'unimportant' the reason, the more important it is to analysis:  

 milk and bits but came back almost instantly. 

Here we have specific detail (unnecessary) but now timing: 

"almost instantly" 

We should consider that something happened to Helen there (remember the need to place her there?) and it caused a passage of time.

Was upset because something had happened and she said “I’m never going to drive again.”

"Was upset" has no pronoun.  There is no person who was "upset" in this sentence.  He removes her from it.  

b.  "because" is the need to explain why she was upset.  He anticipates being asked, "Well, why was she upset?" and wishes to pre empt it.  

c.  "something had happened" further accentuates the passing of time.  He did not say "something happened."  He said that something "had" happened.  This stretches time and now consider why he had the need to say "almost instantly."

He removes her from what happened, and elongates time.  

d.  "something" is left undefined.  

Think now, how important this location is to him and about what happened.  

He wants us to think it was very short in time, but his words betray him.  By wanting us to think it was almost instant, we know it wasn't.  He confirmed this in the imperfect past tense verb usage.  

I.S: And at some point I had to dash out because I was late or I see, I could be late so I dashed out.

Here, the "double blue" (blue highlighting the highest form of sensitivity in analysis) is the most critical point of the statement:

he is now not only skipping time ("And at some point") with missing info ("And:), it is here, while he is with Helen that he is suppressing what happened.  

By just looking at the color, it is here, he is likely telling the truth that he "dashed" (elevated emotion) to her. 

 I’m pretty sure Helen waved goodbye to me 

This is often a very linguistic strong signal of the time of death. 

Here we see him deceptively speaking, yet embedding his responsibility regarding his own actions that caused this phone call:  

but when I think back I’m not so sure, so maybe she did, maybe she didn’t cos I was in a rush then. So then I went and I can’t remember what I did, what order I did this in but I def, definitely ended up at the doctors at some point and when I woke up, I was sort of woozy, a bit, I felt a bit like I’d been on morphine in hospital and then I remember thinking should I be driving but obviously I did  so I either went to the doctors or the dump or maybe I went to the dump next day.

Even in lies, we get the truth.  

Here he is lying about not remembering, admitting he did something to her, in urgency, and dumped her.  

Police Arrest

This was shown as live as it was recorded on a Policeman's Camera Vest.

I.S: Jamie,(son he lived with at the same property as Helen) The garage doors open.

P: I’m arresting you on suspicion of the murder of Helen Bailey.

I.S: You’re joking?

P.O: And of disposing her body in a manner which is likely to obstruct the coroner and of the theft of the money of Helen Bailey. You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand that?

I.S: I guess so.

P: Do you want to sit down?

I.S: Bloody Hell, why? What’s happened, have you found Helen? Where is she? Is that why the garage door’s open?

I.S: I remember bits of it. The first bit I remember is we loaded the car or Helen loaded the car with an old duvet and some boxes ready to take to the dump. So I either went to the doctors or the dump or maybe I went to the dump the next day (inaudible) I’m not sure.

Where the word "we" is used, there was unity.  

The cottage, the house and the car, but not personally.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated. 

Embedded Admission.  


Anonymous said...

That killer sure made it easy for the police.

I pop into this blog from time to time, and each time I learn something valuable from the author and or commenters. I'm grateful for the learning opportunity in this platform. I've become a better 'listener'. I thank you, SA Analysts!


Unknown said...

Said she was going away, hasn’t gone...

confession of sorts right off the start since he says "she hasn't gone ..."

General P. Malaise

Tania Cadogan said...

He also showed sensitivity in relation to the car and garage, she was found under the garage.

trustmeigetit said...

Like she was murdered at their home.
She never actually left....

Anonymous said...

British article on line says he did it for her " £4m fortune " . I have no idea how much money that is. Does that mean 4 million?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

4.9 million although rates change

Anonymous said...

In the pictures, she looks like an ultra-nice person. Did he kill her sweet little dog, too??

Anonymous said...

How did she end up with $5 Million, and HOW did she end up with that loser?

Hey Jude said...

Yes, he threw them both into a cesspit which was in the garage of her/their house and it took three months for the police to find the bodies. The 101 call is much longer than the parts analysed - he says 'sorry' many more times, and something like "it wasn't"t easy to abuse Helen."

Odious creep, I hope he drowns in a cesspit.

Buckley said...

She's a writer of teen fiction,

Hey Jude said...

Well, he joined a bereavement support group after the sudden death of his wife - she dropped dead on the patio, apparently from an epileptic fit. It's disputed whether she had a history of epilepsy, he claimed she did, and it was recorded as the cause of death, which is now being further investigated. Anyway, Helen, whose husband had drowned whilst they were on holiday in Barbados, also belonged to the support group - he maybe was looking for a rich widow - certainly found one,

How did she not know he did not care for her, much less love her? - her friends said she loved him, and they were going to marry. I think he must have hated her, not only to have drugged her over months, but to throw her into a cesspit, then continue to live in the house, pretending he did not know where she was.

I read the judges comments on sentencing, hoping he would get longer specifically for having thrown her in the cesspit, but there wasn't any particular add-on for that, or for the dog, only vaguely then.

Despicable man and so casual with it. Why did she let him into her life? - he is not even good looking. They say love is blind. Shocking for his sons - they lost their mother, then liked and lost Helen, also. Now they'll be wondering if he killed their mother.

starlight said...

Hey Jude, Thank you for helping us solve this case. Your hard work here does not go unnoticed!

Henry said...

I agree; it looks like we're going to need our top detectives for this one; glad to see Hey Jude taking the initiative here with the investigation.

Tatianna L said...

Avery, Thank you for your appreciation of what we do here on the blog. Please pipe up more frequently with your thoughts, they can only enhance our SA experience.

Tatianna L said...

He didn't even know what color her eyes were?! Wow. Just wow. I can't read any further...I'll continue reviewing the case tomorrow.

happyuk said...

He made it too easy for the investigators with all that unnecessary information. It should have been like shooting fish in a barrel but took three months to find the body nevertheless. Interesting reference to morphine given that he drugged her up in the weeks leading to the murder. He won't get out of jail alive.

Hey Jude said...

Minimum term thirty four years -if he lives long, he'll be ninety before he can apply for parole. I hope he lives till he's a hundred and is turned down for parole.

Here are the judge's comments on sentencing:

He said in the call that they were going to marry, then corrected himself to present tense. He also was denigrating of the victim - did she have any mental health issues? - he said she was 'menopausal' - also she'd had a nervous breakdown when she was young, though he didn't want to call it that. Like how considerate of him, when he'd just thrown her down a cesspit with her dog, to not want to say she'd once had a nervous breakdown - sensitive soul, him. Oh, and she wouldn't like him describing her hair as grey - aw, what a nice guy - I think there's a fair chance she would have liked that much better than ending up in a cesspit. If they hadn't found her, It would have all come undone when it needed emptying, perhaps - maybe not.

Maybe she twigged he was drugging her and changed her mind about marrying him. Her mother said in court that Helen had said that she couldn't see her hands to type she was so tired.

He'll probably try to get into the hospital wing for a cushier time - might be inconvenient the judge said that despite his diagnosis medication was enabling him to live an active life.

Looking at the photos and her bio, and then him, and how he destroyed her - how could she fall for such a snake? Sometimes you (I) just have to rant.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Here is an interesting article that an analyst/investigator sent me. It is helpful in reviewing the analysis.

I did not know of the case prior to the analysis. A UK analyst sent me the transcript which I analyzed without knowing the case. This is by routine but reviewing a case after the analysis is quite useful for learning:


Hey Jude said...

Peter -Here is another, with the long 101 call, in two parts:

Ms Bailey’s fiancé, Ian Stewart of Baldock Road in Royston, is alleged to have slowly drugged her for months with sleeping drug Zopiclone before killing her and dumping her body, together with her dog Boris, into the cesspit.

Stewart denies murder, fraud, preventing a lawful burial and three counts of perverting the course of justice.

The 56-year-old, who is standing trial at St Alban’s Crown Court, claims that two men named just Joe and Nick were responsible for the murder and disposal of Ms Bailey’s body.

On day one of the trial (Tuesday, January 10) prosecutor Stuart Trimmer told jurors that Ms Bailey and Stewart had planned to marry, but plans were made that if she died before the wedding then Stewart would obtain the house and a ‘very financial advantage’.
The defendant allegedly murdered Ms Bailey, “probably by suffocation” between 10.51am and 2.30pm on Monday, April 11, 2016.

Before she died, Ms Bailey told family members she was worried she was losing her memory, and internet searches were made by her as to why she kept falling asleep, the court was told.

On day two of the trial, jurors heard from consultant forensic pathologist Nathaniel Carey, who said that if Ms Bailey was sedated, she could have been killed by “more subtle means” which showed no visual injuries, including an arm lock or a sleeper hold.
He said the cause of Helen’s death was officially listed as "undetermined" and that it was unlikely that natural causes resulted or played any part in her death.

He added: “It’s possible she could have been put down the well in an unconscious state [and then drowned], that would be another possibility to consider. I wouldn’t be able to completely exclude that. It’s so scenario dependent.

“It seems that not only was Helen concealed by a third party, but it seems it was likely she died at the hands of a third party by some means.”


What I keep wondering is if she was alive when he put her down the well. I don't get how they seem to be accepting suffocation while the cause of death is undetermined, and the possibility she may have been put down there alive could not be completely ruled out.

Anonymous said...

OMG... Are the US SA crime solvers watching Mike Moore's tweets? He's openly agitating that POTUS is dangerously mentally ill and warning congress to remove POTUS. Do the Dems take marching orders from Mike Moore?

Anonymous said...

Obama did tap Trump's phones. Obama and his spokesman's denials don't stand up to the scrutiny of SA. If anyone should be wearing a tin-foil hat it's Michael Moore. Hopefully he can find one that matches his silver high heels as he transforms into a woman.

Anonymous said...

Why isnt more info been released about what happened to Abigail and Liberty in dirty Indiana?

Anonymous said...

Boy, 10, and his 4-year-old sister start coughing up blood after they drink apple juice contaminated with chemicals during a birthday meal at restaurant. Dailymail

Ms Davis said: 'How do you take your kids out and expect this to happen? We were supposed to be celebrating his birthday.'

Anonymous said...

Here's what Letterman recently said in New York interview. Remember, Lettermans career was based on INSULTING AND RIDICULING others.

But in addition to every other thing that’s wrong with the Trump, he’s ignorant in a way that’s insulting to the office, insulting to America, insulting to human rights, insulting to civil rights, insulting to John Lewis.

Anonymous said...

Dont you get it? Yet? We stays up all nite just talkin & talkin bout AB & JBR. That all we due? Same thing over & over? Yep. Dats all we due.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

One might wonder if MSM does any homework at all.


Anonymous said...

Back in Dec you did an analysis of some of Obama's statements. I'm looking forward to your analysis of statements made by the current administration... none so far. I did not vote for either DT or HRC, btw. Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Trump just tweeted. "We're bringing the jobs back." Easy to examine. Analysis verdict? Jobs are being again created in the USA!!!

lynda said...

It's finally happening for Aliayah!!

Anonymous said...

Peter, Excellent is a pleasure to read such a skilled analysis which seems to become more refined each day. I learned much about identifying missing time and critical sensitivity within statements. I am nostalgic for the days of learning about SCAN...I wonder if you could review some concepts with us, possibly, if it fits into specific analyses you post. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Casey Anthony speaks out:

Nic said...

In the matter the Obama administration wire tapping Trump:

WASHINGTON — Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Sunday denied any suggestion that Trump Tower communications were wiretapped before the election.

For the part of the national security apparatus that he oversaw, "there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign," Clapper told Chuck Todd in an exclusive interview on Sunday's "Meet The Press."

When Todd asked him whether he could confirm or deny if a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Act) order for this existed, Clapper declared, "I can deny it."

Asked again whether there was a FISA Court order to monitor Trump Tower, Clapper said, "Not to my knowledge."

Clapper said that if any wiretap like that occurred, he would "certainly hope" that he would be aware of it.

"I can't speak for other authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity," he added.

Clapper was responding to questions surrounding President Trump's accusation — without evidence — that former President Barack Obama personally ordered wiretap surveillance of Trump Tower before the November election. After tweeting the allegations in the early morning Saturday, Trump and his administration continued to offer no evidence to support the accusation. On Sunday, the Trump administration sought to spin Trump's unsubstantiated claim as a call for Congress to investigate if Obama "abused" his presidential powers.

Former President Obama's spokesman Kevin Lewis released a statement saying, "Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."

Clapper was also asked on "Meet the Press" if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election.

"Not to my knowledge," Clapper said, based on the information he had before his time in the position ended.

"We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion."

When asked whether he still believes that Russians interfered in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump, Clapper said, "Yes, I do."

Nic said...

N.Y.Times Story of "Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claim" is coming from Obama "DeepState" Coup Plotters

[...] Mike Flynn's conversation with the Russians which was legal was at Trump Tower, so that is Trump Tower and Donald Trump's own cell phone signal being grabbed by the NSA and FBI.

For the headline proof there was wire tapping: Fox News reported this and was exposed by Gateway Pundit
Democrat Kathy Arue: “My sources from the White House told me, she thinks it’s all true. She said, um there were concerns that Trump-and this is from the White House and the administration inside the White House…there were concerns that Trump and his surrogates may have been colluding with the Russians and a possible bargaining chip to influence the election, therefore a wiretap was conducted.”

Former Bush AG: Trump right there was surveillance...


Emily McMullin set up Fake Trump Website 3 Days After First FISA Court Warrant to Wiretap Trump was Denied


There wasn’t enough evidence to warrant a wiretapping investigation, but with the newly planted evidence from Evan McMullin through a FISA warrant to wiretap Donald Trump could be obtained. If this domain ( was the catalyst to having the second FISA warrant request approved could be all the evidence Trump needs to indict Obama for illegally wiretapping his campaign and (now) presidency. It is important because the evidence used from would still be in effect today through the FISA warrant obtained in 2016 if it was sole evidence used to obtain the wiretapping warrant which is currently still in effect (latest White House leaks).


Foolsfeedonfolly said...

RE: lynda March 7, 2017 12:39AM

Yes! I saw this yesterday- she apparently bludgeoned little Aliyah, prevented the other children from helping her, and threatened them should any of them tell. It took incredible, immeasurable courage for whoever did finally tell. I think Lena Lunsford's going away fro a long time, if she doesn't get the death penalty. "Jailhouse Justice" may catch up with her, especially given the missing child picture of poor little battered Aliyah.

John Mc Gowan said...

P: She said nothing to you then, was she leaving the premises at the time?

I.S: No, no, she was… I left her here.

This is a true statement,. He did indeed leave her there. She was under their garage.

Full 101 call: