"The British “master manipulator” who killed children’s author Helen Bailey has also been convicted of murdering his first wife - and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison, authorities said". February 10,2022 New York Post.
It's surprising this TV documentary didn't even once mention the possibility Ian Stewart had also killed his 47 year old wife Diane, 6 years before he killed Helen Bailey. That possibility was in the public domain, because immediately after his 2017 conviction for Helen's murder, police announced they were launching an investigation into Diane's death. The fact Stewart got away with murdering Diane, is of course a HUGE factor in his confidence that he would also get away with murdering Helen! Prof David Wilson also incorrectly states in this programme that Ian Stewart didn't attend his murder trial for killing Helen Bailey, and didn't give evidence in his own defence - both statements are untrue! Stewart was present in court throughout the trial, and gave laughably unconvincing evidence stating two fictitious men (supposedly business associates of Helen's late husband) had kidnapped her and her dog, killed them and returned them to the cesspit under her home without him knowing! He even gave these two supposed killers names - 'Nick and Joe'. There was a dramatic moment in court when Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer produced 'Nick and Joe' in court. They were two totally innocent middle aged men, former bowls team-mates of Stewart's, whose names had obviously provided his inspiration for the murderers in his made up story. The jury was left in no doubt about the true identity of the killer - Ian Stewart. The fact Prof Wilson made such a huge error in saying Stewart didn't attend his murder trial or give evidence in his defence, proves he didn't personally research this case, which is very concerning! A quick Google search would have provided all the news reports of the court proceedings, and told him Stewart was very much present throughout.
Ah, but it wasn't his first murder; Ian Stewart was convicted of killing his first wife Diane as well. He probably would have gone on to kill again had he not been caught for Helen's murder.
@@starchild352 It's surprising this documentary, made before his prosecution for his wife Diane's 2010 murder, didn't at least mention that police were looking into her death. Fact is, Ian Stewart was so confident he'd get away with murdering Helen Bailey, because he'd already got away with murdering Diane!
In early 2022 Ian Stewart was convicted of murdering his wife Diane in 2010, six years before he killed Helen Bailey. Incredibly the coroner had originally ruled Diane's death by natural causes, after Stewart claimed she had collapsed with an epileptic fit while alone with him in their garden. As with Helen, he picked a time to strangle/choke hold her at home (he may have put a plastic bag over her head), while his two sons were out - one at school, the other taking his driving test. On Ian Stewart's orders Diane's body was cremated, but by a twist of fate she had donated her brain to medical science. Those samples of her brain tissue were still held in storage, and police investigating her death were able to have them analysed. On examination, they proved that oxygen had been suddenly and deliberately shut off to her brain, and she had likely been murdered NOT died of natural causes. If only that coroner had not made such a terrible mistake in 2010 and listened to the concerns of Diane's sister, who didn't trust Ian Stewart, he could have been stopped before he targeted, wooed and murdered Helen six years later. That he also killed her beloved little dog brings home how coldly premeditated her murder was. He knew everyone was aware she adored her dachshund Boris, and went everywhere with him. She would not have 'gone missing' as he claimed, without taking him. So poor Boris too had to be killed and his tiny, lifeless body hidden in that ghastly, squalid 'grave' alongside her. This show was made before Stewart's belated prosecution for his wife's murder (though the programme-makers should have referenced the police's publicly stated suspicions that he had also killed Diane). Fact is, a huge reason he was so confident of getting away with the murder of Helen Bailey, is that he'd already got away with the murder of his previous partner! Criminologists have long identified that psychopaths who escape justice for a murder become emboldened and believe they are untouchable, therefore they are even more dangerous after getting away with a killing, and highly likely to kill again. This was clearly the case with Ian Stewart. The motive for killing his wife Diane in 2010 seems to have been boredom and possibly fear of divorce. Their sons reported they were arguing frequently, in the weeks leading up to her death. He made a relatively modest £100,000 from her death, a combination of a life insurance policy and her savings, with which he immediately went out and treated himself to a red MG sports car. Ian Stewart was obsessed with money, and if Diane had mentioned divorce or he thought it was on the cards, he would not have wanted to lose the value of half their house/other joint assets. I think that probably explains his biggest motive for killing her. After Diane's murder, he set about looking for a wealthy woman as his next victim, to set himself up as a rich man. He hit the jackpot around 18 months later, when he found millionairess widow Helen Bailey through a Facebook group for the bereaved he joined, posing as a heartbroken widower. Early in their email exchanges, he asked to see a photo of Helen's house in swanky Highgate, North London. It was a £1.8m mansion, and told him everything he needed to know about her wealth. A few days later he drove to her house and knocked on her door, unannounced, and uninvited. She answered the door with wet hair - taken aback, mid hair wash, but clearly the alarm bells that should have rung with her about him turning up out of the blue like that, didn't. He proceeded to 'love bomb' her, as toxic narcissistic abusers do, telling her he loved her and sleeping with her within a month of their first meeting. Helen had only known a happy marriage with her soul mate, successful businessman John Sinfield, who tragically drowned on a Barbados holiday with her in 2011. She was an easy victim for a predator like Ian Stewart, gullible about men, and too ready to believe he genuinely loved her, as her husband had done, and wasn't just after her money. Soon she was excitedly buying the mansion with swimming pool that Ian Stewart wanted near his current home where he'd grown up. His two adult sons moved into it with them, and Helen began excitedly planning their wedding at swanky Brocket Hall - though bizarrely, she told very few people, and those she did confide in said they'd been 'sworn to secrecy' about it. No doubt this subterfuge came from Ian Stewart, who unbeknown to Helen had no intention of going through with the marriage. The timing of the murder is interesting - he killed her before too much money had been spent on deposits for wedding arrangements and before Helen's pricey, bespoke pink diamond engagement ring had been paid for. He didn't need to be Helen's husband to get his hands on her near £4m cash and assets if she vanished - he'd made sure of this, by getting her to change her will in his favour, and sign over power of attorney to him in the event of her being incapacitated - or going missing. Helen never knew the real Ian Stewart. He was not a tragic widower at all, but a ruthless wife murderer. Sadly she trusted him so much, she gave him a motive to kill her. This documentary contains a major and baffling factual error. Prof David Wilson incorrectly states that Ian Stewart refused to attend this 2017 trial for Helen Bailey's murder, and didn't give evidence in his own defence. In fact he DID appear in court every day for the duration of the trial, and he also gave evidence! Ditto his subsequent trial in early 2022 for his wife Diane's murder, which he also attended and testified at. That Prof Wilson should have made such a big mistake indicates he doesn't do even basic research into the murder cases he covers. A quick Google search for news reports on Ian Stewart's trial would have confirmed he was there! Clearly his guest, the psychologist Dr Brooks, hadn't done any research into the case either, as he didn't correct him. You'd think a serious true crime documentary like this would employ researchers to ensure proper fact-checking prevented such mistakes making it into the final, edited show. I'm a former TV researcher and producer, and it's unthinkable I'd have allowed a cock up as big as that to get through! Ian Stewart is a ruthless psychopath. As the Judge at his first murder trial pointed out on sentencing him, Helen Bailey had loved him very much. But he wasn't content to live with her as her husband and share her wealth - he wanted it all for himself, and took her life and her dog's life, in order to steal everything she had from her. To add insult to injury, he dumped their bodies in human excrement beneath the home she'd dreamed of living a happy future in as his wife. Every time he flushed the toilet, he was dumping more effluent on her. His crimes are unspeakable, and so is he. Ian Stewart has caused immeasurable pain and suffering, brutally ending the lives of two women and devastating their families and friends. After his second murder conviction this year, he was given a rare, whole life tariff, meaning he will never be eligible for parole, and will die behind bars. Thank God he can never be a danger to unsuspecting women again! I hope he lives a long and miserable life in prison, haunted by the spirits of Diane and Helen, the two women he so hideously betrayed.
@@Lifelongloser You're welcome! I'm a journalist by profession (and former TV producer), so it comes with the territory. It frustrates me when shows like this are so thin on facts. This documentary actually contained a big factual error, which I've just added to my above post (Prof Wilson incorrectly stated Stewart didn't attend or give evidence at his 2017 trial for Helen Bailey's murder, when he was present throughout and DID give evidence!) Ditto his trial for wife Diane's murder earlier this year which he also attended and testified at. I'm stunned Prof Wilson doesn't do even basic research on the cases he covers, and that the TV production company doesn't hire researchers to ensure he's better informed! He wasn't even corrected by his sidekick the unimpressive prison psychologist Dr Brooks, indicating he too hadn't looked into the case!
Michael Brookes seems good at his work, but David Wilson - pontificating in patronising platitudes whilst waving his hands limply in exaggerated flourishes - no.
Covert narcissist too - he came across as quiet, unimpressive, monosyllabic, the sort of person you'd struggle to engage in conversation. People didn't know what the warm, charismatic and successful Helen saw in him. Covert narcs are unimpressive people who present as modest, even introverted. Because of that, people mistakenly perceive them as non-threatening, having no idea the evil schemes going on in their heads - and their total inability to care about other people. All Stewart cared about was money. Yet he was already well off when he met Helen, and according to those who knew him was notoriously miserly in spending it. So why did he search for a wealthy widow to kill? He wanted more cash in the bank and a big house to make him feel powerful and give him the high status he craved. As the Judge said when sentencing him for Helen's murder: 'Helen loved you and wanted to share her wealth with you as your wife. But you weren't content with sharing her millions - you wanted them all to yourself. It's chilling that Ian Stewart got away with murdering his first wife Diane in 2010, whose death the coroner ruled was natural causes due to her (well controlled) epilepsy. After that he set about finding a wealthier woman to kill, and the recently widowed, lonely Helen walked into his trap. If he'd only been prosecuted and jailed for killing Diane, Helen would not have met or been murdered by him.
Its amazing how she found him attractive. Helen was an intelligent, pretty lady. Loneliness is a very unfortunate state.Why cant people be happy in their own company?
@@janefriel6895 She had so much to offer and he had so little. It’s terrible that people rush blindly to other people, people they don’t at all know, in times of crisis. That’s what trusted family, friends and psychologists are for. So sad.
@@apriljk6557 I think you’re absolutely right. He was so lazy that he couldn’t be bothered keeping up the pretence. It was all too much like hard work.
@@janefriel6895 it’s so much more complicated than that. Narcissists (psychopaths & sociopaths) can sniff an empathetic person a mile away. Most of their “role play” is to pull on your heart strings as a victim. I’ve learnt so so much from that past relationship & one of many many lessons I’ve learnt is DON’T waste your time & energy looking for the good in someone (male or female). It is sooo draining & I just give them a wide berth once I feel my energy dwindling. I don’t beat myself up anymore for being so stupid….they are superb at what they do. Most of us would rarely come across this type of dangerous manipulative person but they are out there. I escaped with my sanity (just!), an appreciation of life, knowing I was a kind good person before, during & after this period. He has moved on to number 3 victim who was a recent divorcee (as I was), has her own coastal penthouse apartment & even drives her BMW around 🤦♀️. He is still an empty shallow vessel disguised as something else at his core with no friends or close meaningful family ties & I am surrounded by love & friendship.
Incredibly great programme! I think the actor playing Ian is top notch - looks so like him! They also proved recently that he had a hand in his late wife's demise! BTW, I've been with my husband 20yrs & he still couldn't tell you my date of birth - he only knows I have blue eyes as I'm Caucasian & he's Asian!
Yes, Ian Stewart was recently convicted of the murder of his wife Diane in 2010, six years before murdering fiancee Helen Bailey. If only the coroner had not been fooled into a verdict of death by natural causes, Stewart could have been charged with Diane's murder long ago, before he had a chance to woo and then murder poor, vulnerable widow Helen. So unbearably tragic.
It's funny how the investigators are saying, "This guy really sucked at covering his tracks!" and then patting themselves on the back for 'cracking the case'. Yeah yeah great detective work.
41:00 Not only does Prof David Wilson incorrectly state Ian Stewart didn't attend his own murder trial and didn't give evidence in his defence (wrong on both counts - he attended the whole trial and gave evidence), he draws some very dumb conclusions here about his motives. Ian Stewart absolutely DID kill Helen Bailey for financial reasons! It's a great shame David Wilson didn't take time to do some basic research on this well documented case, and specifically didn't read reports of the 2017 murder trial. The Judge's brilliant sentencing summing up nailed the question of motive. Ian Stewart simply wasn't willing to share Helen Bailey's wealth with her, as her husband - he was greedy, and wanted her money and assets all for himself. This was very premeditated, he ensured he would get her money regardless of whether they were married, persuading her to change her will to benefit him, and even getting her to sign a document giving him power of attorney should she be incapacitated by illness, or disappear. He clearly set all this in place so he wouldn't have to marry her, in order to get his hands on her cash after killing her! Helen Bailey loved Ian Stewart. But he cared so little for her, he wasn't even willing to give her the wedding she craved before killing her. Of course he killed her for her money - what other possible reason could there be? David Wilson's "we'll never know the reason he killed her" conclusion is ridiculous! On the same day he murdered her, he visited the conveyancer in charge of the sale of a house Helen owned in Newcastle, urging him to hurry its completion - he wanted that money! And that same day soon after killing her, he accessed Helen's online banking and changed an existing monthly standing payment from her to him from £600 to £4,000. This murder was ALL about Helen's money! In February 2022 after this programme was made, Stewart has also convicted of the 2010 murder of his wife Diane, and given a rare in the UK, whole life tariff, meaning he will never be eligible for parole but will die in prison.
@@paulabrown6840 'Unkind'? Getting the most basic details wrong of a recent, horrific and well-documented tragedy that still devastates many people today, is extremely unkind! I've no idea why you feel compelled to defend Professor David Wilson for his lazy mistakes and lack of professionalism in this documentary. He isn't a child, or an amateur TH-camr uploading true crime content as a hobby. He's a grown man and full time criminologist, whose startling errors in this programme prove he didn't do even the most basic research on the April 2016 murder of Helen Bailey, and the February 2017 conviction of her killer Ian Stewart. That simply isn't good enough! Respect is not demanded, it's earned. As an NCTJ qualified journalist and former TV producer, I know from experience how critical accuracy is in reporting real events - and never more so than when those events surround loss of life. If Prof Wilson had done the most cursory Google searches, he would not have stated fiction as fact, eg his bizarre and totally untrue claims that Ian Stewart had 'refused' to attend his own murder trial or to give evidence. He was present in court throughout, and gave dramatic and widely reported false testimony blaming Helen's murder on two fictitious men called 'Nick and Joe'. Nor would Prof Wilson have failed to recognise the clear and unambiguous financial motive for Helen Bailey's murder, if he'd only done his homework. He laughably said Stewart's supposed 'silence' meant we would never know why he murdered Helen. But we've always known exactly why he killed her, whatever he did or didn't say. Actions speak louder than words, and his every action before and after he suffocated his fiance to death, was to get his hands on her millions. In the months leading up to her death at 51, he persuaded her to change her near £4 million will in his favour, and to draw up a document giving him power of attorney in the event of her critical/incapacitating illness or - crucially - if she went missing. This of course ensured he wouldn't have to marry her, in order to have the same legal claim on her estate as a husband. If those measures alone didn't show obvious financial motive, his actions within hours of killing her on 11th April 2016 did. While her body was still warm he accessed her online bank account, and changed an existing monthly standing order to their joint account from £600 to £4,000. After dumping her corpse and that of her beloved dachshund Boris in the foul-smelling cesspit within the home's garage, Stewart drove to see the estate agent handling the sale of a house Helen owned in the North East of England. He claimed she was too ill to come with him in person that day, but that she was anxious to hasten completion. He continued to push for the money from that house sale during the three months Helen was missing, each time unsuccessfully citing his power of attorney. The facts speak for themselves, and were encapsulated in Judge Bright's superb February 2017 sentencing speech (again, readily available via a Google search). Stewart wasn't willing to share Helen's multi million pound fortune with her as her husband, but wanted it all to himself. There's no mystery about it. Even the timing of the murder - Helen's internet history revealed she suddenly 'disappeared' mid-morning while looking at wedding websites, including her chosen venue Brocket Hall - points to money. She would imminently pay large online deposits for their nuptials, and £13,550 to a Mayfair jeweller for the bespoke, pink diamond engagement ring she'd ordered. Stewart clearly had no intention of marrying her, and he certainly didn't want that wedding cash going anywhere but his pockets. While she was planning their wedding celebrations, he was plotting - and executing - her and Boris' murders for money. This is by far the worst documentary I've seen on the Helen Bailey murder case. There's no excuse for Prof Wilson's shabby research, glaring errors, lack of insight and general incompetence. 'Unkind'? He fully deserves to be called out!
Absolutely for the money. He showed his feelings for Helen and Boris by where he put them. It was a long term plan for the money. Hence the drugging, will change etc. I think DW meant why it happened on that day. If she hadn't been mad with grief would she have given him a second look? All very sad.
@@Marigold502 You hit the nail on the head. Ian Stewart was an arch manipulator, and went searching for a wealthy - and vulnerable - widow, to kill for her money. Having got away with the recent murder of his wife Diane, he was confident of pulling off the same crime - but this time with a significantly greater financial reward. He found that perfect doubly-whammy with Helen Bailey, a multi millionairess, devastated and disoriented mere months after the sudden, freak death of her beloved husband John Sinfield in a drowning accident during their Barbados vacation, aged 65. Helen and John had been together for 22 years, married for 15, faithful and happy throughout their union. Without him she was lost. She loathed the single life, as she shared in her book about bereavement 'When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis'. Even the smallest changes to her old married routine - like buying a single scotch egg at the local deli, or taking the bins out alone - reminded her of her new, hated widow status like a stab to the heart. Helen was a traditionalist and a home maker. She missed the familiar - ie being partner to a man. As a result, she was far too hasty to jump into the first intimate relationship that came along. Though fundamentally heartless, dangerous and indeed psychopathic - and totally unbeknown to her, a wife killer who had escaped justice - Ian Stewart was sufficiently savvy to know what qualities Helen sought from him, and fake them. This is typical of the early, wooing/'love-bombing' phase of a narcissist's relationship with his abuse/murder victim. The abuser will promise the victim the Moon, and work hard to hook them emotionally by telling them what they want to hear. Close family and friends would no doubt have counselled Helen not to jump into another relationship so soon after losing her husband, but instead to date multiple men and take her time. But she soon saw Ian Stewart as her best chance of replicating the happy married life she'd known with John Sinfield. And once she was set on that course, I doubt anyone could have dissuaded her. The result, as we know, was tragedy, with the cruel, premature deaths of herself aged just 51, along with her beloved dog Boris. It's a truly terrible story.
@@glamdolly30 I agree with you! He wasn't this bumbling type of personality people liked either as stated in programme. In fact Helen's neighbour who had them over for an evening said he was a 'non-event' As for being 'mentally slow' he was a former software engineer (who didn't work) not exactly the village idiot. All the signs of intent from the start. Isolates - Moves her away from London and friends there which she loved. Gaslights her by long-term drugging (shown in hair.) Buoyed up by getting away with his wife's murder and an amount of insurance money ( bought himself a fancy car with it soon after) he went for the bigger fish. You only had to google her name to know she must have had a fortune. Many other killers have done the same and got overconfident in believing they'll get away with it. It doesn't make them mentally incompetent. Ian Brady has a higher IQ than those in the programme (top2%) and look at him- a full life behind bars. Very poor research/ opinions in my view too.
Helen just wanted love and companionship, and she was grieving, he was a self centered, uncaring, pathetic loser, who now lives in a small cell 23 hours a day, forever, r I p Helen.
Why would a smart woman sign over part of her wealth to anyone? I am a widow, definitely not wealthy, but what little I have would stay in my name, then my sons.
Totally agree, Helen gave him & his Sons so much. She was so very giving, he wasn't ever going to be her "Happy Ever After" What an Actor he was. In all kinds of areas of their relationship. Rip ⭐ HB
Helen was the perfect victim for a predator like Ian Stewart, a wealthy, lonely widow with no children. She was innocent about predatory men, because she'd been lucky enough to be in a 22 year relationship (15 of those years married) with wealthy businessman John Sinfield, who loved her deeply. Tragically he drowned while they were on holiday in Barbados in 2011. In John Sinfield, Helen had been blessed to meet her soul mate, a man who genuinely loved her and who she trusted completely. She assumed all men were like him, and didn't question it when Ian Stewart 'love bombed her' (in classic, narcissistic abuser style), showering her with flattery and declarations of love in the early stages of their relationship. They initially got chatting online through a Facebook group for the bereaved, with him posing as a heart broken widow after the sudden death of his wife Diane in 2010 (in fact he had killed her, and has since been convicted for her murder too). Early in their Facebook messaging, Stewart asked to exchange photos of their houses, and Helen naively obliged. The image of her million pound mansion in London's upmarket Highgate was all the information he needed, and he pursued her aggressively, even turning up on her doorstep unannounced a few days later. She answered the door with wet hair (she'd been washing it), astonished but not recognising how inappropriate it was of him to call on her out of the blue like that when they'd never met before. Alarm bells didn't ring, because to a great extent Helen was an innocent. Within a month of their first meeting she slept with him - a big deal for a lonely widow who had only ever loved one man. Stewart swept her off her feet and she never questioned it - she didn't think for one moment he was after her money. Helen was desperately lonely after losing her husband in her late 40s. She struggled to adjust to life as a single woman, as she wrote in her book 'When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis'. In her mind, her only chance of being happy again was to re-marry, and recreate that cosy partnership she'd had with John. But she should have taken her time, dated many men, and waited before she jumped headlong into a committed relationship. From what I've seen of Ian Stewart, he doesn't have a lot going for him. He's certainly no looker, and a man of modest achievements. His profession is said to be 'computer programmer', but he hadn't worked in years and lived on a £2,000 a month private insurance policy set up with his former employer, in case he was ever struck down with an illness serious enough to stop him working. As 'luck' would have it, he was diagnosed with a muscle wasting disease called 'Myasthenia Gravis', and he could give up work and receive 75% of his full salary up to pensionable age. From what we know of Stewart's devious nature, it would appear that was always his plan. His life seems to have been an exercise in grabbing 'low hanging fruit' ie getting himself maximum reward for minimum effort. Helen's friends say they struggled to understand what she saw in Stewart. John Sinfield was an attractive man - intelligent and successful, dynamic and charismatic. In contrast Ian Stewart was quiet, awkward and charmless, with no conversational skills - a classic Covert Narcissist. I think Helen did what many women do where inadequate men are concerned - she fooled herself he had qualities he didn't, and was so desperate to be a wife again, she 'settled'. It would cost her her life.
I don't think his kids should have got HER money. I think the company her policy was held by should have voided the kids entitlement to receiving HER money as it was ill-gotten gains, even if it was their disgusting father who perpetrated the horrible and horrendous act of taking Helen's Life, and not theirs. He may have done it so that his sons would "inherit" the money (from him) and wouldn't want for anything.
I don't know why the public criticise the police in cases like this.. they are not mind readers, they do the best they can. They want the truth more than most.
No way I'm putting an a....... on my will my hard earned cash is not going to any man. This is a red flag from the start. This monster killed the poor dog too 😢 rot in hell Ian
He also killed his first wife of 30 years, but he come unstuck, he had her cremated but her brain was donated for sience, he got rid of her body but not the brain, when they looked at her brain, they saw she had died of lack of oxygen, he said she had an epileptic fit, but she hadn't had a fit for 18 years, nasty horrible heartless monster and then he killed the next wife 😡
Prod David Wilson got that totally wrong, and it's very concerning because it proves he didn't research this murder case himself. Ian Stewart DID attend his 2017 trial for the murder of Helen Bailey, and he DID give evidence in his own defence! I followed it closely at the time. When he took the stand, he told a ridiculous, belated and far fetched story about some fictitious associates of Helen's late husband called 'Nick and Joe' having kidnapped her and her dog, killed them, and then returned their bodies to the cess pit under her house without his knowledge! Needless to say, .the jury didn't buy it. There was a dramatic moment during Stewart's testimony when prosecutor Stuart Trimmer produced 'Nick and Joe' in court - two innocent, middle aged men who had been in a bowls team with Stewart and obviously provided the inspiration for his invented story. It's shocking Prof David Wilson made such a serious error in this documentary - it suggests he didn't do any research of his own on the case. He only had to Google the news reports of the trial to know Ian Stewart was present in court throughout. And as I explained, his false testimony was actually very dramatic!
No!! Don't let these very rare cases of horrific outcomes deter you from finding someone you actually care about and love. If you think this is normal you are mistaken and if you think that's a good reason to avoid relationships then that to me is a sign that you are not ready. That's ok, that's yr right, but you are more likely get hit by lighting than to be a victim of a homicide. There is so much true crime on tv that you may get the wrong impression that it's more. Prevalent than The real.. I just lost my thoughts about 5 times. I can't write what I think, yr more than likely die in a car crash than homicide. And the way they reenact a relationship between this guy a d this victim is pathetic looking, but in real life there was a lot more going on. You have to be a fool to be tricked is a old saying and it's not true at all. Meeting new people and trusting yr own sense of judgement is healthy.
Poor Helen. Diane as well. RIP. I would have loved to have got my hands on him. Preferably before he was able to kill anyone. If I had , he wouldn’t have been able to tie his own shoes up, let alone attempt to kill anybody.
He could have had her money (or generous access to it) if he had played the role of the nice husband, she was mad about him. But he only wanted the money, not her and her annoying pooch. He hated them both.
@@sabine4759 - his sole aim was to have all her money. After murdering his first wife for money, he targeted Helen in her bereaved state. Leaving her wasn’t an option for him or he would have got nothing. Such a sick and evil man.
I wish Netflix or HBO would make series. Just imagine someone pretending the whole time to care about you. All for your money. And you were fooled. You had no idea. It’s frightening. She was used from the first day. All for his love of money. Was she alive when she was thrown down in that hole? Was her dog alive? Pure evil!
I think he’s incapable of caring for any living thing besides himself. The death of the little dog can’t be compared to the death of Helen, but the very fact that Stewart would callously throw Boris into the cesspit too speaks volumes about the sadistic nature of this man.
He killed Helen's beloved Dachshund Boris because everyone knew she adored her dog, and took him everywhere. So in order for people to believe his fake story that Helen had left home, little Boris had to vanish with her. This was as coldly premeditated as murder gets. Little did Helen know her fiance was not the heartbroken widower he made out - he had murdered his wife Diane a mere 2 years before they met! He now has a whole life tariff since being convicted of Diane's 2010 murder too in early 2022. So Ian Stewart will die in his jail cell. The irony is he had got away with killing his first wife, and could have enjoyed a comfortable life married to wealthy Helen, sharing her riches - if he hadn't been ruthless and greedy, and decided he wanted all her money and assets for himself.
Makes you wonder the number women who go after psychos and weirdos ! Not only that but she decides to do that just 8 months after her husband’s death .. that is called rebound relationship and will be void of any objectivity and thought… purely just emotional and impulsive .. and a predator is just waiting for those east opportunities
He is probably looking her in the eyes as he is choking her out & does not know the colour. Wow the guy is dead from the neck up. Hope he gets the crap beat out of him in prison.
Women we are so trusting by nature. This is a great handicap. This means we are victims of our very nature. Education was supposed to help women make an informed decisions, however this has never been the case. Helen Bailey suffered a violent tragic death in the hands of this financial predator. Men don’t love, women do love the greatest mismatch between men and women. Women in the 18th century and 21st century suffer the same tragic crime. This monster in disguise represents 89% of men from my understanding and assessment. Women wake up and value your lives love is a very tricky emotion that we dwell on which is destroying us in the whole world. Millions of women are dying in the hands of men who have no substance, insignificant with low self esteem. The virtual world is adding up to the worst form of sexual abuse, men hiding behind a computer targeting women.
Harrie, while there is truth in what you say, please don’t tar all men with the same brush. Men love just as deeply, and there are many men who have been exploited - and murdered - by unscrupulous women.
You are so right, every year so many wonderful, generous, loving (and much loved) women are being murdered by inadequate males like Ian Stewart. Helen Bailey was vulnerable to the flattery and false declarations of love from Stewart, because she had only had one intimate relationship in her life - her happy marriage to successful businessman John Sinfield, who tragically drowned when they were on holiday together in Barbados in 2011 (Helen's £4 million estate had mostly come from Sinfield - contrary to media reports, she was not a hugely successful author, she wrote children's books which made a modest income). Because of her sexual inexperience and her wonderful marriage, she was too willing to believe Ian Stewart's false declarations of love, and too keen to get back into a secure marriage, the lifestyle she knew and had felt safe and protected in with John. But unbeknown to her Ian Stewart was not the heart broken widower he pretended. He'd told her his wife Diane had died suddenly in their back garden of an epileptic fit in 2010, aged 47. The shocking truth is he'd murdered her while they were alone at home (their two teenage sons were at school and taking a driving test). And he got away with it. He inherited £100,000 from Diane, modest compared to what he stood to get from Helen, yet the Judge said the motive in both cases was financial. I suspect Diane planned to split from him (their sons said they had frequently argued in the last weeks of her life), and he wasn't willing to lose half of their shared assets in a divorce. Money was everything to Ian Stewart, and there are many reports of his meanness. Her murder while they were both home alone, was almost a carbon copy of his murder of Helen, six years later. It was only by sheet luck medical experts could prove Diane had not died from epilepsy but asphyxiation. At Stewart's instructions she was cremated. But at her own behest she had donated her brain to medical science. Brain samples were still in storage, and 11 years after her death proved she had been murdered by having her oxygen deliberately shut off (experts believe he either got her in a choke hold from behind, or put a plastic bag over her head). If only that evidence had emerged when the coroner investigated Diane's cause of death and it had been correctly identified as a homicide. Stewart would have been imprisoned - and Helen Bailey would not have met or been murdered by him six years later. It's chilling that Ian Stewart got away with killing his first wife, and would have continued to escape justice for it had he not also killed Helen. It was only after he was convicted of Helen's murder in 2017, police began an investigation his wife Diane's death. I wonder how many more supposedly 'heart broken' widowers are walking around (and dating women), whose wives were actually murdered by them? Scary!
He wanted the money possibly because Helen would eventually conclude that was all he wanted and would subsequently end the relationship by divorce if they should ever get married. He might also understand that he was a cad and her presence would be a constant reminder of that. Also, he wanted the money and to use it perhaps to pursue other women.
Stewart was a disgusting freeloader and gold digger, who wasn't even willing to give Helen the wedding she craved before he took her life - the timing of the murders had much to do with avoiding the big, expensive wedding she was planning for them. They'd also together visited the expensive jeweller who was making Helen the pink diamond engagement ring she'd set her heart on (and was undoubtedly paying for herself). It appears the deadline to pay for her ring, also sped his murder plans. Stewart was such a pathological Taker, he couldn't be bothered to make the effort to play the loving new husband - and didn't want her spending cash on that wedding or ring that he wanted to pocket for himself! He already had more money than he knew what to do with before he met Helen, thanks to killing his previous wife Diane and taking out an insurance policy that paid him a handsome £2,000 a month for a bogus medical condition he claimed stopped him working. He was notoriously mean, even protesting at his bowls club about donating to a kitty for group coffee breaks! Why he was even prepared to kill two women for money he was too frugal to spend is a mystery. It's utterly chilling that Helen bought his 'heart broken widower' act. As she was excitedly planning their wedding, unbeknown to her, her 'groom-to-be' was plotting her murder - and it wasn't his first.
“Never going to drive again” I haven’t got to the end of the documentary yet but I dunno, would that be related to the zopiclone? I’m on the highest dose of Zopiclone and i swear if I had no idea I was ingesting it, I’d be beside myself with terror and confusion and the problem is, it impedes your balance, your appetite is way off, your decision making skills are gone, you’re forgetful, you come across as groggy or completely off your face even the day after. You lose your strength and reflexes and there is no way she could have had the presence of mind to know what to do or fight back. She must have been so confused. Basically she was a sitting duck. Even if she’d disagreed with things, I’d hazard a guess he caught her at her weak moments and she was exhausted and grieving and he was probably pretending to take care of her. So she just gave him everything. He needed to drug her to get what he wanted and was too stupid and weak to earn himself. So pathetic yet so evil.
I'm surprised the police let him go upstairs and get dressed. That wouldn't happen in America. I'm pretty sure it would be a come as you are party. And poor Helen thought she could strike gold with husbands twice. Ian looked like a POS . May she RIP
Agreed, Prof David Wilson is way overrated. He made a BIG factual mistake on this programme, incorrectly stating that Ian Stewart did not attend his 2017 trial for the murder of Helen Bailey, and did not give evidence in his own defence. In fact he was present in court throughout the trial, and he took the stand and spoke in his defence! A quick Google search for news reports of the trial would have confirmed that, so I've no idea how Wilson got it so badly wrong. It suggests he doesn't research the cases he covers himself - and nor does his guest Prof Michael Brooks, the very unimpressive, very nervous psychologist (who Wilson only hired to make himself look good!) You'd think even after Prof Wilson made that incorrect statement about Ian Steward not attending his trial, that Prof Brooks would have done sufficient research on the case (including reading a few reports on the murder trial) to correct him so that big boo-boo didn't end up in the finished programme. Hell, why didn't his RESEARCHERS put him right? Or doesn't he hire any?! Unbelievable incompetence.
@@glamdolly30 Agree. I just find him intensely annoying as he just appears on so many crime shows and takes himself so seriously. In fact, many of his ‘insights’ are not earth-shattering at all, and I can perceive very little expertise there. Your info only adds to the impression that it’s being on TV that’s most important to him, rather than accuracy. Victims deserve better. He’s making a nice living from their stories!
Why is this an episode of Confessions of a Serial Killer, when he hasn’t confessed to a single thing, nor is he presented as a serial killer? So confused.
I see a lot of comments about the inaccuracies of this doco and I'm wondering why?? .....I figure they're a channel replaying OLD episodes and if U want updated info U can easily type that in and research it urself......
lol the introduction had me rewatching what was being said because I kept thinking about "an introduction to body language" which this guy took way too seriously.
Start moving death row quicker and criminals might think twice.Prisom is just free rent,food ,activities. Free schooling.Theses people schooling. To go relax in prison.Its a vacation.
Proven that death penalty doesn't stop people from killing. Phycos think they are to smart to be caught. When it's a rage or revenge killing the person doesn't stop and think about the death penalty. To bad because we'd have less crime.
How, exactly, does murdering one woman make him a serial killer?! I usually enjoy watching this show, but this episode was hard to watch. Redundancies and the bumbling mental health "professionals" made this pretty torturous to watch.
Rest In Peace Helen. It seems to me he joined the grieving widows to prey on wealthy widows. He had killed his first wife and was looking for another victim for $$$ Watch out for "love bombers" they are usually narcissists amd evil with ill intentions.
Maybe he was a secret gay person because he killed her before they went to Spain. She was way too good looking for him. They should find out what he did while he was there.
I can’t believe that they pay so many bullshit Artists to create a program where all they do is point out the obvious. And pretend that it Was thanks to them this and other crimes are solved. I love watching crime shows and follow how great and hard working policemen and Detectives solve crimes and Prevent others. As much as I love watching these cops, I hate the Psychological bullshit spat out after all Said and done. Get rid of the TV Psycho babblers. I know there are great crime scene Analysts. But please not after the fact BS. Thank you.
"The British “master manipulator” who killed children’s author Helen Bailey has also been convicted of murdering his first wife - and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison, authorities said". February 10,2022 New York Post.
It's surprising this TV documentary didn't even once mention the possibility Ian Stewart had also killed his 47 year old wife Diane, 6 years before he killed Helen Bailey. That possibility was in the public domain, because immediately after his 2017 conviction for Helen's murder, police announced they were launching an investigation into Diane's death.
The fact Stewart got away with murdering Diane, is of course a HUGE factor in his confidence that he would also get away with murdering Helen!
Prof David Wilson also incorrectly states in this programme that Ian Stewart didn't attend his murder trial for killing Helen Bailey, and didn't give evidence in his own defence - both statements are untrue! Stewart was present in court throughout the trial, and gave laughably unconvincing evidence stating two fictitious men (supposedly business associates of Helen's late husband) had kidnapped her and her dog, killed them and returned them to the cesspit under her home without him knowing!
He even gave these two supposed killers names - 'Nick and Joe'. There was a dramatic moment in court when Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer produced 'Nick and Joe' in court. They were two totally innocent middle aged men, former bowls team-mates of Stewart's, whose names had obviously provided his inspiration for the murderers in his made up story. The jury was left in no doubt about the true identity of the killer - Ian Stewart.
The fact Prof Wilson made such a huge error in saying Stewart didn't attend his murder trial or give evidence in his defence, proves he didn't personally research this case, which is very concerning! A quick Google search would have provided all the news reports of the court proceedings, and told him Stewart was very much present throughout.
Ah, but it wasn't his first murder; Ian Stewart was convicted of killing his first wife Diane as well. He probably would have gone on to kill again had he not been caught for Helen's murder.
I wondered if he had murdered her as well
@@starchild352 It's surprising this documentary, made before his prosecution for his wife Diane's 2010 murder, didn't at least mention that police were looking into her death. Fact is, Ian Stewart was so confident he'd get away with murdering Helen Bailey, because he'd already got away with murdering Diane!
Me too, I watched a documentary on tv about this case and thought he probably did the same to his first wife. Scary and so sad
In early 2022 Ian Stewart was convicted of murdering his wife Diane in 2010, six years before he killed Helen Bailey. Incredibly the coroner had originally ruled Diane's death by natural causes, after Stewart claimed she had collapsed with an epileptic fit while alone with him in their garden. As with Helen, he picked a time to strangle/choke hold her at home (he may have put a plastic bag over her head), while his two sons were out - one at school, the other taking his driving test.
On Ian Stewart's orders Diane's body was cremated, but by a twist of fate she had donated her brain to medical science. Those samples of her brain tissue were still held in storage, and police investigating her death were able to have them analysed. On examination, they proved that oxygen had been suddenly and deliberately shut off to her brain, and she had likely been murdered NOT died of natural causes.
If only that coroner had not made such a terrible mistake in 2010 and listened to the concerns of Diane's sister, who didn't trust Ian Stewart, he could have been stopped before he targeted, wooed and murdered Helen six years later. That he also killed her beloved little dog brings home how coldly premeditated her murder was. He knew everyone was aware she adored her dachshund Boris, and went everywhere with him. She would not have 'gone missing' as he claimed, without taking him. So poor Boris too had to be killed and his tiny, lifeless body hidden in that ghastly, squalid 'grave' alongside her.
This show was made before Stewart's belated prosecution for his wife's murder (though the programme-makers should have referenced the police's publicly stated suspicions that he had also killed Diane). Fact is, a huge reason he was so confident of getting away with the murder of Helen Bailey, is that he'd already got away with the murder of his previous partner! Criminologists have long identified that psychopaths who escape justice for a murder become emboldened and believe they are untouchable, therefore they are even more dangerous after getting away with a killing, and highly likely to kill again. This was clearly the case with Ian Stewart.
The motive for killing his wife Diane in 2010 seems to have been boredom and possibly fear of divorce. Their sons reported they were arguing frequently, in the weeks leading up to her death. He made a relatively modest £100,000 from her death, a combination of a life insurance policy and her savings, with which he immediately went out and treated himself to a red MG sports car. Ian Stewart was obsessed with money, and if Diane had mentioned divorce or he thought it was on the cards, he would not have wanted to lose the value of half their house/other joint assets. I think that probably explains his biggest motive for killing her.
After Diane's murder, he set about looking for a wealthy woman as his next victim, to set himself up as a rich man. He hit the jackpot around 18 months later, when he found millionairess widow Helen Bailey through a Facebook group for the bereaved he joined, posing as a heartbroken widower.
Early in their email exchanges, he asked to see a photo of Helen's house in swanky Highgate, North London. It was a £1.8m mansion, and told him everything he needed to know about her wealth. A few days later he drove to her house and knocked on her door, unannounced, and uninvited. She answered the door with wet hair - taken aback, mid hair wash, but clearly the alarm bells that should have rung with her about him turning up out of the blue like that, didn't.
He proceeded to 'love bomb' her, as toxic narcissistic abusers do, telling her he loved her and sleeping with her within a month of their first meeting. Helen had only known a happy marriage with her soul mate, successful businessman John Sinfield, who tragically drowned on a Barbados holiday with her in 2011. She was an easy victim for a predator like Ian Stewart, gullible about men, and too ready to believe he genuinely loved her, as her husband had done, and wasn't just after her money.
Soon she was excitedly buying the mansion with swimming pool that Ian Stewart wanted near his current home where he'd grown up. His two adult sons moved into it with them, and Helen began excitedly planning their wedding at swanky Brocket Hall - though bizarrely, she told very few people, and those she did confide in said they'd been 'sworn to secrecy' about it. No doubt this subterfuge came from Ian Stewart, who unbeknown to Helen had no intention of going through with the marriage.
The timing of the murder is interesting - he killed her before too much money had been spent on deposits for wedding arrangements and before Helen's pricey, bespoke pink diamond engagement ring had been paid for. He didn't need to be Helen's husband to get his hands on her near £4m cash and assets if she vanished - he'd made sure of this, by getting her to change her will in his favour, and sign over power of attorney to him in the event of her being incapacitated - or going missing. Helen never knew the real Ian Stewart. He was not a tragic widower at all, but a ruthless wife murderer. Sadly she trusted him so much, she gave him a motive to kill her.
This documentary contains a major and baffling factual error. Prof David Wilson incorrectly states that Ian Stewart refused to attend this 2017 trial for Helen Bailey's murder, and didn't give evidence in his own defence. In fact he DID appear in court every day for the duration of the trial, and he also gave evidence! Ditto his subsequent trial in early 2022 for his wife Diane's murder, which he also attended and testified at. That Prof Wilson should have made such a big mistake indicates he doesn't do even basic research into the murder cases he covers. A quick Google search for news reports on Ian Stewart's trial would have confirmed he was there! Clearly his guest, the psychologist Dr Brooks, hadn't done any research into the case either, as he didn't correct him.
You'd think a serious true crime documentary like this would employ researchers to ensure proper fact-checking prevented such mistakes making it into the final, edited show. I'm a former TV researcher and producer, and it's unthinkable I'd have allowed a cock up as big as that to get through!
Ian Stewart is a ruthless psychopath. As the Judge at his first murder trial pointed out on sentencing him, Helen Bailey had loved him very much. But he wasn't content to live with her as her husband and share her wealth - he wanted it all for himself, and took her life and her dog's life, in order to steal everything she had from her. To add insult to injury, he dumped their bodies in human excrement beneath the home she'd dreamed of living a happy future in as his wife. Every time he flushed the toilet, he was dumping more effluent on her. His crimes are unspeakable, and so is he.
Ian Stewart has caused immeasurable pain and suffering, brutally ending the lives of two women and devastating their families and friends. After his second murder conviction this year, he was given a rare, whole life tariff, meaning he will never be eligible for parole, and will die behind bars. Thank God he can never be a danger to unsuspecting women again!
I hope he lives a long and miserable life in prison, haunted by the spirits of Diane and Helen, the two women he so hideously betrayed.
Very interesting. Thanks
@@Lifelongloser You're welcome! I'm a journalist by profession (and former TV producer), so it comes with the territory. It frustrates me when shows like this are so thin on facts.
This documentary actually contained a big factual error, which I've just added to my above post (Prof Wilson incorrectly stated Stewart didn't attend or give evidence at his 2017 trial for Helen Bailey's murder, when he was present throughout and DID give evidence!) Ditto his trial for wife Diane's murder earlier this year which he also attended and testified at.
I'm stunned Prof Wilson doesn't do even basic research on the cases he covers, and that the TV production company doesn't hire researchers to ensure he's better informed! He wasn't even corrected by his sidekick the unimpressive prison psychologist Dr Brooks, indicating he too hadn't looked into the case!
Damn, You’re the one who should’ve made this video
@@glamdolly30 thank you for saving me time wasted watching this. Your comment is appreciated.
This error is really infuriating!
Terrific programme!!!! Love Criminalists David Wilson & Michael Brookes!!!!
Me too!! 😊😊
David Wilson is the best! 🏴
Michael Brookes seems good at his work, but David Wilson - pontificating in patronising platitudes whilst waving his hands limply in exaggerated flourishes - no.
The monster put the lady & her pet in the sewer hole.
Unbelievable.
RIP, Helen & Boris.
🌻
And the monster put Boris in to the pit to die alive as well! He doesn't deserve the breathe in his body. That poor dog drowned to death in shit. 😢
What an absolute animal! I hope they take both his eyes in prison
His real motive was GREED plain and simple. He was a person unable to love and turned it into hate.
Malignant narcissist is the label
Covert narcissist too - he came across as quiet, unimpressive, monosyllabic, the sort of person you'd struggle to engage in conversation. People didn't know what the warm, charismatic and successful Helen saw in him.
Covert narcs are unimpressive people who present as modest, even introverted. Because of that, people mistakenly perceive them as non-threatening, having no idea the evil schemes going on in their heads - and their total inability to care about other people. All Stewart cared about was money. Yet he was already well off when he met Helen, and according to those who knew him was notoriously miserly in spending it. So why did he search for a wealthy widow to kill?
He wanted more cash in the bank and a big house to make him feel powerful and give him the high status he craved. As the Judge said when sentencing him for Helen's murder:
'Helen loved you and wanted to share her wealth with you as your wife. But you weren't content with sharing her millions - you wanted them all to yourself.
It's chilling that Ian Stewart got away with murdering his first wife Diane in 2010, whose death the coroner ruled was natural causes due to her (well controlled) epilepsy. After that he set about finding a wealthier woman to kill, and the recently widowed, lonely Helen walked into his trap. If he'd only been prosecuted and jailed for killing Diane, Helen would not have met or been murdered by him.
I believe, from being involved with a narcissist, he knew it was only a matter of time before Helen could see his true pathetic leeching nature.
Its amazing how she found him attractive. Helen was an intelligent, pretty lady. Loneliness is a very unfortunate state.Why cant people be happy in their own company?
@@janefriel6895 She had so much to offer and he had so little. It’s terrible that people rush blindly to other people, people they don’t at all know, in times of crisis. That’s what trusted family, friends and psychologists are for. So sad.
They get tired of pretending to be the people they trick you into believing they are so you'd fall for them.
@@apriljk6557 I think you’re absolutely right. He was so lazy that he couldn’t be bothered keeping up the pretence. It was all too much like hard work.
@@janefriel6895 it’s so much more complicated than that. Narcissists (psychopaths & sociopaths) can sniff an empathetic person a mile away. Most of their “role play” is to pull on your heart strings as a victim.
I’ve learnt so so much from that past relationship & one of many many lessons I’ve learnt is DON’T waste your time & energy looking for the good in someone (male or female). It is sooo draining & I just give them a wide berth once I feel my energy dwindling.
I don’t beat myself up anymore for being so stupid….they are superb at what they do.
Most of us would rarely come across this type of dangerous manipulative person but they are out there. I escaped with my sanity (just!), an appreciation of life, knowing I was a kind good person before, during & after this period.
He has moved on to number 3 victim who was a recent divorcee (as I was), has her own coastal penthouse apartment & even drives her BMW around 🤦♀️.
He is still an empty shallow vessel disguised as something else at his core with no friends or close meaningful family ties & I am surrounded by love & friendship.
Incredibly great programme!
I think the actor playing Ian is top notch - looks so like him! They also proved recently that he had a hand in his late wife's demise!
BTW, I've been with my husband 20yrs & he still couldn't tell you my date of birth - he only knows I have blue eyes as I'm Caucasian & he's Asian!
Yes, Ian Stewart was recently convicted of the murder of his wife Diane in 2010, six years before murdering fiancee Helen Bailey. If only the coroner had not been fooled into a verdict of death by natural causes, Stewart could have been charged with Diane's murder long ago, before he had a chance to woo and then murder poor, vulnerable widow Helen. So unbearably tragic.
It's funny how the investigators are saying, "This guy really sucked at covering his tracks!" and then patting themselves on the back for 'cracking the case'. Yeah yeah great detective work.
41:00 Not only does Prof David Wilson incorrectly state Ian Stewart didn't attend his own murder trial and didn't give evidence in his defence (wrong on both counts - he attended the whole trial and gave evidence), he draws some very dumb conclusions here about his motives.
Ian Stewart absolutely DID kill Helen Bailey for financial reasons! It's a great shame David Wilson didn't take time to do some basic research on this well documented case, and specifically didn't read reports of the 2017 murder trial. The Judge's brilliant sentencing summing up nailed the question of motive.
Ian Stewart simply wasn't willing to share Helen Bailey's wealth with her, as her husband - he was greedy, and wanted her money and assets all for himself. This was very premeditated, he ensured he would get her money regardless of whether they were married, persuading her to change her will to benefit him, and even getting her to sign a document giving him power of attorney should she be incapacitated by illness, or disappear. He clearly set all this in place so he wouldn't have to marry her, in order to get his hands on her cash after killing her!
Helen Bailey loved Ian Stewart. But he cared so little for her, he wasn't even willing to give her the wedding she craved before killing her. Of course he killed her for her money - what other possible reason could there be? David Wilson's "we'll never know the reason he killed her" conclusion is ridiculous! On the same day he murdered her, he visited the conveyancer in charge of the sale of a house Helen owned in Newcastle, urging him to hurry its completion - he wanted that money! And that same day soon after killing her, he accessed Helen's online banking and changed an existing monthly standing payment from her to him from £600 to £4,000. This murder was ALL about Helen's money!
In February 2022 after this programme was made, Stewart has also convicted of the 2010 murder of his wife Diane, and given a rare in the UK, whole life tariff, meaning he will never be eligible for parole but will die in prison.
No need to put Prof David Wilson down to make your point. Unkind.
@@paulabrown6840 'Unkind'? Getting the most basic details wrong of a recent, horrific and well-documented tragedy that still devastates many people today, is extremely unkind!
I've no idea why you feel compelled to defend Professor David Wilson for his lazy mistakes and lack of professionalism in this documentary. He isn't a child, or an amateur TH-camr uploading true crime content as a hobby. He's a grown man and full time criminologist, whose startling errors in this programme prove he didn't do even the most basic research on the April 2016 murder of Helen Bailey, and the February 2017 conviction of her killer Ian Stewart.
That simply isn't good enough! Respect is not demanded, it's earned. As an NCTJ qualified journalist and former TV producer, I know from experience how critical accuracy is in reporting real events - and never more so than when those events surround loss of life.
If Prof Wilson had done the most cursory Google searches, he would not have stated fiction as fact, eg his bizarre and totally untrue claims that Ian Stewart had 'refused' to attend his own murder trial or to give evidence. He was present in court throughout, and gave dramatic and widely reported false testimony blaming Helen's murder on two fictitious men called 'Nick and Joe'.
Nor would Prof Wilson have failed to recognise the clear and unambiguous financial motive for Helen Bailey's murder, if he'd only done his homework. He laughably said Stewart's supposed 'silence' meant we would never know why he murdered Helen. But we've always known exactly why he killed her, whatever he did or didn't say. Actions speak louder than words, and his every action before and after he suffocated his fiance to death, was to get his hands on her millions.
In the months leading up to her death at 51, he persuaded her to change her near £4 million will in his favour, and to draw up a document giving him power of attorney in the event of her critical/incapacitating illness or - crucially - if she went missing. This of course ensured he wouldn't have to marry her, in order to have the same legal claim on her estate as a husband.
If those measures alone didn't show obvious financial motive, his actions within hours of killing her on 11th April 2016 did. While her body was still warm he accessed her online bank account, and changed an existing monthly standing order to their joint account from £600 to £4,000.
After dumping her corpse and that of her beloved dachshund Boris in the foul-smelling cesspit within the home's garage, Stewart drove to see the estate agent handling the sale of a house Helen owned in the North East of England. He claimed she was too ill to come with him in person that day, but that she was anxious to hasten completion. He continued to push for the money from that house sale during the three months Helen was missing, each time unsuccessfully citing his power of attorney.
The facts speak for themselves, and were encapsulated in Judge Bright's superb February 2017 sentencing speech (again, readily available via a Google search). Stewart wasn't willing to share Helen's multi million pound fortune with her as her husband, but wanted it all to himself. There's no mystery about it.
Even the timing of the murder - Helen's internet history revealed she suddenly 'disappeared' mid-morning while looking at wedding websites, including her chosen venue Brocket Hall - points to money. She would imminently pay large online deposits for their nuptials, and £13,550 to a Mayfair jeweller for the bespoke, pink diamond engagement ring she'd ordered. Stewart clearly had no intention of marrying her, and he certainly didn't want that wedding cash going anywhere but his pockets. While she was planning their wedding celebrations, he was plotting - and executing - her and Boris' murders for money.
This is by far the worst documentary I've seen on the Helen Bailey murder case. There's no excuse for Prof Wilson's shabby research, glaring errors, lack of insight and general incompetence. 'Unkind'? He fully deserves to be called out!
Absolutely for the money. He showed his feelings for Helen and Boris by where he put them. It was a long term plan for the money. Hence the drugging, will change etc. I think DW meant why it happened on that day. If she hadn't been mad with grief would she have given him a second look? All very sad.
@@Marigold502 You hit the nail on the head. Ian Stewart was an arch manipulator, and went searching for a wealthy - and vulnerable - widow, to kill for her money. Having got away with the recent murder of his wife Diane, he was confident of pulling off the same crime - but this time with a significantly greater financial reward.
He found that perfect doubly-whammy with Helen Bailey, a multi millionairess, devastated and disoriented mere months after the sudden, freak death of her beloved husband John Sinfield in a drowning accident during their Barbados vacation, aged 65.
Helen and John had been together for 22 years, married for 15, faithful and happy throughout their union. Without him she was lost. She loathed the single life, as she shared in her book about bereavement 'When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis'. Even the smallest changes to her old married routine - like buying a single scotch egg at the local deli, or taking the bins out alone - reminded her of her new, hated widow status like a stab to the heart.
Helen was a traditionalist and a home maker. She missed the familiar - ie being partner to a man. As a result, she was far too hasty to jump into the first intimate relationship that came along.
Though fundamentally heartless, dangerous and indeed psychopathic - and totally unbeknown to her, a wife killer who had escaped justice - Ian Stewart was sufficiently savvy to know what qualities Helen sought from him, and fake them. This is typical of the early, wooing/'love-bombing' phase of a narcissist's relationship with his abuse/murder victim. The abuser will promise the victim the Moon, and work hard to hook them emotionally by telling them what they want to hear.
Close family and friends would no doubt have counselled Helen not to jump into another relationship so soon after losing her husband, but instead to date multiple men and take her time. But she soon saw Ian Stewart as her best chance of replicating the happy married life she'd known with John Sinfield. And once she was set on that course, I doubt anyone could have dissuaded her.
The result, as we know, was tragedy, with the cruel, premature deaths of herself aged just 51, along with her beloved dog Boris. It's a truly terrible story.
@@glamdolly30
I agree with you! He wasn't this bumbling type of personality people liked either as stated in programme. In fact Helen's neighbour who had them over for an evening said he was a 'non-event' As for being 'mentally slow' he was a former software engineer (who didn't work) not exactly the village idiot. All the signs of intent from the start. Isolates - Moves her away from London and friends there which she loved. Gaslights her by long-term drugging (shown in hair.) Buoyed up by getting away with his wife's murder and an amount of insurance money ( bought himself a fancy car with it soon after) he went for the bigger fish. You only had to google her name to know she must have had a fortune. Many other killers have done the same and got overconfident in believing they'll get away with it. It doesn't make them mentally incompetent. Ian Brady has a higher IQ than those in the programme (top2%) and look at him- a full life behind bars. Very poor research/ opinions in my view too.
Helen just wanted love and companionship, and she was grieving, he was a self centered, uncaring, pathetic loser, who now lives in a small cell 23 hours a day, forever, r I p Helen.
Why would a smart woman sign over part of her wealth to anyone? I am a widow, definitely not wealthy, but what little I have would stay in my name, then my sons.
Totally agree, Helen gave him & his Sons so much. She was so very giving, he wasn't ever going to be her "Happy Ever After" What an Actor he was. In all kinds of areas of their relationship.
Rip ⭐ HB
Helen was the perfect victim for a predator like Ian Stewart, a wealthy, lonely widow with no children. She was innocent about predatory men, because she'd been lucky enough to be in a 22 year relationship (15 of those years married) with wealthy businessman John Sinfield, who loved her deeply. Tragically he drowned while they were on holiday in Barbados in 2011.
In John Sinfield, Helen had been blessed to meet her soul mate, a man who genuinely loved her and who she trusted completely. She assumed all men were like him, and didn't question it when Ian Stewart 'love bombed her' (in classic, narcissistic abuser style), showering her with flattery and declarations of love in the early stages of their relationship.
They initially got chatting online through a Facebook group for the bereaved, with him posing as a heart broken widow after the sudden death of his wife Diane in 2010 (in fact he had killed her, and has since been convicted for her murder too). Early in their Facebook messaging, Stewart asked to exchange photos of their houses, and Helen naively obliged. The image of her million pound mansion in London's upmarket Highgate was all the information he needed, and he pursued her aggressively, even turning up on her doorstep unannounced a few days later. She answered the door with wet hair (she'd been washing it), astonished but not recognising how inappropriate it was of him to call on her out of the blue like that when they'd never met before. Alarm bells didn't ring, because to a great extent Helen was an innocent.
Within a month of their first meeting she slept with him - a big deal for a lonely widow who had only ever loved one man. Stewart swept her off her feet and she never questioned it - she didn't think for one moment he was after her money.
Helen was desperately lonely after losing her husband in her late 40s. She struggled to adjust to life as a single woman, as she wrote in her book 'When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis'. In her mind, her only chance of being happy again was to re-marry, and recreate that cosy partnership she'd had with John. But she should have taken her time, dated many men, and waited before she jumped headlong into a committed relationship.
From what I've seen of Ian Stewart, he doesn't have a lot going for him. He's certainly no looker, and a man of modest achievements. His profession is said to be 'computer programmer', but he hadn't worked in years and lived on a £2,000 a month private insurance policy set up with his former employer, in case he was ever struck down with an illness serious enough to stop him working. As 'luck' would have it, he was diagnosed with a muscle wasting disease called 'Myasthenia Gravis', and he could give up work and receive 75% of his full salary up to pensionable age. From what we know of Stewart's devious nature, it would appear that was always his plan. His life seems to have been an exercise in grabbing 'low hanging fruit' ie getting himself maximum reward for minimum effort.
Helen's friends say they struggled to understand what she saw in Stewart. John Sinfield was an attractive man - intelligent and successful, dynamic and charismatic. In contrast Ian Stewart was quiet, awkward and charmless, with no conversational skills - a classic Covert Narcissist. I think Helen did what many women do where inadequate men are concerned - she fooled herself he had qualities he didn't, and was so desperate to be a wife again, she 'settled'. It would cost her her life.
I don't think his kids should have got HER money. I think the company her policy was held by should have voided the kids entitlement to receiving HER money as it was ill-gotten gains, even if it was their disgusting father who perpetrated the horrible and horrendous act of taking Helen's Life, and not theirs. He may have done it so that his sons would "inherit" the money (from him) and wouldn't want for anything.
Very interesting. Love this Prof.
I don't know why the public criticise the police in cases like this.. they are not mind readers, they do the best they can. They want the truth more than most.
He killed the dog..poor weenie dog!
lol you brits.. and your dogs..
"the house is on fire.."
(forget the kids..)
WHERE ARE THE DOGS..!??
No way I'm putting an a....... on my will my hard earned cash is not going to any man. This is a red flag from the start. This monster killed the poor dog too 😢 rot in hell Ian
They also found Boris in there with her. He’s a monster.
He also killed his first wife of 30 years, but he come unstuck, he had her cremated but her brain was donated for sience, he got rid of her body but not the brain, when they looked at her brain, they saw she had died of lack of oxygen, he said she had an epileptic fit, but she hadn't had a fit for 18 years, nasty horrible heartless monster and then he killed the next wife 😡
This is just horrible horrible horrible horrible how scary
He refused to attend his trial...... ??? What???
I did not know anyone was ever given that option.
He should have been made to attend, the Law can be very odd in this Country 🤔
Prod David Wilson got that totally wrong, and it's very concerning because it proves he didn't research this murder case himself. Ian Stewart DID attend his 2017 trial for the murder of Helen Bailey, and he DID give evidence in his own defence! I followed it closely at the time.
When he took the stand, he told a ridiculous, belated and far fetched story about some fictitious associates of Helen's late husband called 'Nick and Joe' having kidnapped her and her dog, killed them, and then returned their bodies to the cess pit under her house without his knowledge! Needless to say, .the jury didn't buy it.
There was a dramatic moment during Stewart's testimony when prosecutor Stuart Trimmer produced 'Nick and Joe' in court - two innocent, middle aged men who had been in a bowls team with Stewart and obviously provided the inspiration for his invented story.
It's shocking Prof David Wilson made such a serious error in this documentary - it suggests he didn't do any research of his own on the case. He only had to Google the news reports of the trial to know Ian Stewart was present in court throughout. And as I explained, his false testimony was actually very dramatic!
some commenter says thats wrong intel, they say he attended and gave testimony … as well as the motive is known 🤷🏻♀️
@@Tam1064 > I've seen other shows on this case and he did attend
They got this wrong in this show. He attended and testified at both trials
Glad I’m single
Same 👍🏻
Has nothing to do with being single .. too many ignore red flags
She was widowed she was single too she just missed red flags.
No!! Don't let these very rare cases of horrific outcomes deter you from finding someone you actually care about and love. If you think this is normal you are mistaken and if you think that's a good reason to avoid relationships then that to me is a sign that you are not ready. That's ok, that's yr right, but you are more likely get hit by lighting than to be a victim of a homicide. There is so much true crime on tv that you may get the wrong impression that it's more. Prevalent than The real.. I just lost my thoughts about 5 times. I can't write what I think, yr more than likely die in a car crash than homicide. And the way they reenact a relationship between this guy a d this victim is pathetic looking, but in real life there was a lot more going on. You have to be a fool to be tricked is a old saying and it's not true at all. Meeting new people and trusting yr own sense of judgement is healthy.
I’m sorry for u
The LOVE of money is route of all evil
Root
I have been with my wife for 38 years and I had to stop and think what her eye color is.
Poor Helen. Diane as well. RIP. I would have loved to have got my hands on him. Preferably before he was able to kill anyone. If I had , he wouldn’t have been able to tie his own shoes up, let alone attempt to kill anybody.
Hopefully they’ll have his eyeballs out in prison. ( Popped out with dessert spoon and snipped off with nail clippers )
He could have had her money (or generous access to it) if he had played the role of the nice husband, she was mad about him. But he only wanted the money, not her and her annoying pooch. He hated them both.
He could have just left her, murdering somebody is just cruel and disgusting!
@@sabine4759 - his sole aim was to have all her money. After murdering his first wife for money, he targeted Helen in her bereaved state. Leaving her wasn’t an option for him or he would have got nothing. Such a sick and evil man.
His poor boys, poor Helen. None of them deserved this.
I just found this CHANNEL, and subscribe right away.
Rambling 999 calls are always a red flag. 👀
This is an excellent examination of human criminal behaviors and language. A very interesting channel.
The police should search the house of every missing person. They fail to do so again and again......
Wow
Don’t ever let a guy live with you
You go to his house or live separate
I wish Netflix or HBO would make series. Just imagine someone pretending the whole time to care about you. All for your money. And you were fooled. You had no idea. It’s frightening. She was used from the first day. All for his love of money. Was she alive when she was thrown down in that hole? Was her dog alive? Pure evil!
I know. Wish someone would make a mini series.
Or write a detailed book.
She really believed he loved her.
All he saw were dollar signs. Horrific
Did he have to kill little Boris too?
What 🤦♀️ why the fck did he kill a beautiful woman
I think he’s incapable of caring for any living thing besides himself. The death of the little dog can’t be compared to the death of Helen, but the very fact that Stewart would callously throw Boris into the cesspit too speaks volumes about the sadistic nature of this man.
The definition of psychopath...
He killed Helen's beloved Dachshund Boris because everyone knew she adored her dog, and took him everywhere. So in order for people to believe his fake story that Helen had left home, little Boris had to vanish with her.
This was as coldly premeditated as murder gets. Little did Helen know her fiance was not the heartbroken widower he made out - he had murdered his wife Diane a mere 2 years before they met! He now has a whole life tariff since being convicted of Diane's 2010 murder too in early 2022. So Ian Stewart will die in his jail cell.
The irony is he had got away with killing his first wife, and could have enjoyed a comfortable life married to wealthy Helen, sharing her riches - if he hadn't been ruthless and greedy, and decided he wanted all her money and assets for himself.
They explained why he had to kill dog.
Duping delight, a politicians must have personality traits!!
Makes you wonder the number women who go after psychos and weirdos ! Not only that but she decides to do that just 8 months after her husband’s death .. that is called rebound relationship and will be void of any objectivity and thought… purely just emotional and impulsive .. and a predator is just waiting for those east opportunities
Way too soon
Oh no... This is the septic tank case.. Poor women and dog..
He is probably looking her in the eyes as he is choking her out & does not know the colour. Wow the guy is dead from the neck up. Hope he gets the crap beat out of him in prison.
Great episode. Especially me playing that horrible man.
Women we are so trusting by nature.
This is a great handicap.
This means we are victims of our very nature.
Education was supposed to help women make an informed decisions, however this has never been the case.
Helen Bailey suffered a violent tragic death in the hands of this financial predator.
Men don’t love, women do love the greatest mismatch between men and women. Women in the 18th century and 21st century suffer the same tragic crime. This monster in disguise represents 89% of men from my understanding and assessment.
Women wake up and value your lives love is a very tricky emotion that we dwell on which is destroying us in the whole world.
Millions of women are dying in the hands of men who have no substance, insignificant with low self esteem.
The virtual world is adding up to the worst form of sexual abuse, men hiding behind a computer targeting women.
Harrie, while there is truth in what you say, please don’t tar all men with the same brush. Men love just as deeply, and there are many men who have been exploited - and murdered - by unscrupulous women.
I agree it’s what you wrote, it’s really interesting, you seem to know a lot...
You are so right, every year so many wonderful, generous, loving (and much loved) women are being murdered by inadequate males like Ian Stewart. Helen Bailey was vulnerable to the flattery and false declarations of love from Stewart, because she had only had one intimate relationship in her life - her happy marriage to successful businessman John Sinfield, who tragically drowned when they were on holiday together in Barbados in 2011 (Helen's £4 million estate had mostly come from Sinfield - contrary to media reports, she was not a hugely successful author, she wrote children's books which made a modest income).
Because of her sexual inexperience and her wonderful marriage, she was too willing to believe Ian Stewart's false declarations of love, and too keen to get back into a secure marriage, the lifestyle she knew and had felt safe and protected in with John.
But unbeknown to her Ian Stewart was not the heart broken widower he pretended. He'd told her his wife Diane had died suddenly in their back garden of an epileptic fit in 2010, aged 47. The shocking truth is he'd murdered her while they were alone at home (their two teenage sons were at school and taking a driving test). And he got away with it. He inherited £100,000 from Diane, modest compared to what he stood to get from Helen, yet the Judge said the motive in both cases was financial. I suspect Diane planned to split from him (their sons said they had frequently argued in the last weeks of her life), and he wasn't willing to lose half of their shared assets in a divorce. Money was everything to Ian Stewart, and there are many reports of his meanness. Her murder while they were both home alone, was almost a carbon copy of his murder of Helen, six years later.
It was only by sheet luck medical experts could prove Diane had not died from epilepsy but asphyxiation. At Stewart's instructions she was cremated. But at her own behest she had donated her brain to medical science. Brain samples were still in storage, and 11 years after her death proved she had been murdered by having her oxygen deliberately shut off (experts believe he either got her in a choke hold from behind, or put a plastic bag over her head).
If only that evidence had emerged when the coroner investigated Diane's cause of death and it had been correctly identified as a homicide. Stewart would have been imprisoned - and Helen Bailey would not have met or been murdered by him six years later.
It's chilling that Ian Stewart got away with killing his first wife, and would have continued to escape justice for it had he not also killed Helen. It was only after he was convicted of Helen's murder in 2017, police began an investigation his wife Diane's death. I wonder how many more supposedly 'heart broken' widowers are walking around (and dating women), whose wives were actually murdered by them? Scary!
Need more man eaters
Well, in order to be "serial" I think you have to kill more than one person ...
So he has to be charged with the second murder, his first wife ..
A serial killer is someone who kills 3 or more people. I guess its 3 if you count Boris the dachshund 😅
He has been charged and convicted of his first wife now.
I think the current definition of serial murder is at least two different murders that occur over a period of time ranging from hours to years.
He wanted the money possibly because Helen would eventually conclude that was all he wanted and would subsequently end the relationship by divorce if they should ever get married. He might also understand that he was a cad and her presence would be a constant reminder of that. Also, he wanted the money and to use it perhaps to pursue other women.
Stewart was a disgusting freeloader and gold digger, who wasn't even willing to give Helen the wedding she craved before he took her life - the timing of the murders had much to do with avoiding the big, expensive wedding she was planning for them. They'd also together visited the expensive jeweller who was making Helen the pink diamond engagement ring she'd set her heart on (and was undoubtedly paying for herself). It appears the deadline to pay for her ring, also sped his murder plans.
Stewart was such a pathological Taker, he couldn't be bothered to make the effort to play the loving new husband - and didn't want her spending cash on that wedding or ring that he wanted to pocket for himself!
He already had more money than he knew what to do with before he met Helen, thanks to killing his previous wife Diane and taking out an insurance policy that paid him a handsome £2,000 a month for a bogus medical condition he claimed stopped him working. He was notoriously mean, even protesting at his bowls club about donating to a kitty for group coffee breaks! Why he was even prepared to kill two women for money he was too frugal to spend is a mystery.
It's utterly chilling that Helen bought his 'heart broken widower' act. As she was excitedly planning their wedding, unbeknown to her, her 'groom-to-be' was plotting her murder - and it wasn't his first.
"cutting edge lip-sync technology", he says...with a straight face and everything...
This isn't your grandfather's lip-sync.
He mentioned the garage to get the police to reveal whether they’d been in there obviously
“Never going to drive again” I haven’t got to the end of the documentary yet but I dunno, would that be related to the zopiclone? I’m on the highest dose of Zopiclone and i swear if I had no idea I was ingesting it, I’d be beside myself with terror and confusion and the problem is, it impedes your balance, your appetite is way off, your decision making skills are gone, you’re forgetful, you come across as groggy or completely off your face even the day after. You lose your strength and reflexes and there is no way she could have had the presence of mind to know what to do or fight back. She must have been so confused. Basically she was a sitting duck. Even if she’d disagreed with things, I’d hazard a guess he caught her at her weak moments and she was exhausted and grieving and he was probably pretending to take care of her. So she just gave him everything. He needed to drug her to get what he wanted and was too stupid and weak to earn himself. So pathetic yet so evil.
I'm surprised the police let him go upstairs and get dressed. That wouldn't happen in America. I'm pretty sure it would be a come as you are party.
And poor Helen thought she could strike gold with husbands twice.
Ian looked like a POS .
May she RIP
David Wilson is on EVERYTHING. Such an ego.
Agreed, Prof David Wilson is way overrated. He made a BIG factual mistake on this programme, incorrectly stating that Ian Stewart did not attend his 2017 trial for the murder of Helen Bailey, and did not give evidence in his own defence. In fact he was present in court throughout the trial, and he took the stand and spoke in his defence!
A quick Google search for news reports of the trial would have confirmed that, so I've no idea how Wilson got it so badly wrong. It suggests he doesn't research the cases he covers himself - and nor does his guest Prof Michael Brooks, the very unimpressive, very nervous psychologist (who Wilson only hired to make himself look good!)
You'd think even after Prof Wilson made that incorrect statement about Ian Steward not attending his trial, that Prof Brooks would have done sufficient research on the case (including reading a few reports on the murder trial) to correct him so that big boo-boo didn't end up in the finished programme. Hell, why didn't his RESEARCHERS put him right? Or doesn't he hire any?! Unbelievable incompetence.
@@glamdolly30 Agree. I just find him intensely annoying as he just appears on so many crime shows and takes himself so seriously. In fact, many of his ‘insights’ are not earth-shattering at all, and I can perceive very little expertise there. Your info only adds to the impression that it’s being on TV that’s most important to him, rather than accuracy. Victims deserve better. He’s making a nice living from their stories!
Why is this an episode of Confessions of a Serial Killer, when he hasn’t confessed to a single thing, nor is he presented as a serial killer? So confused.
They say he had killed before
Thank u interesting channel but also sad thank u
I see a lot of comments about the inaccuracies of this doco and I'm wondering why?? .....I figure they're a channel replaying OLD episodes and if U want updated info U can easily type that in and research it urself......
Barstard 😡😡😡
Hand them over to the victims loved ones
is this video about a serial killer or a bunch of analist ?
lol the introduction had me rewatching what was being said because I kept thinking about "an introduction to body language" which this guy took way too seriously.
I wonder how he killed the dog?😢
Apparently he threw his toy into the septic tank….
Threw him in the cesspit. There is a possibility the dog was alive at the time. The whole thing is just sickening.
He killed the dog in front of her bcuz the dog meant more to her then he did
Is the 999 call audio the real thing from the time?
Start moving death row quicker and criminals might think twice.Prisom is just free rent,food ,activities. Free schooling.Theses people schooling. To go relax in prison.Its a vacation.
Proven that death penalty doesn't stop people from killing. Phycos think they are to smart to be caught. When it's a rage or revenge killing the person doesn't stop and think about the death penalty. To bad because we'd have less crime.
It was HER house.
How, exactly, does murdering one woman make him a serial killer?!
I usually enjoy watching this show, but this episode was hard to watch. Redundancies and the bumbling mental health "professionals" made this pretty torturous to watch.
He was also convicted of murdering his wife.
@@tonyneal4716 That's still below the serial killer threshold of 3 though.
Rest In Peace Helen. It seems to me he joined the grieving widows to prey on wealthy widows. He had killed his first wife and was looking for another victim for $$$ Watch out for "love bombers" they are usually narcissists amd evil with ill intentions.
Which is to say, all evil.....!
I am sick to death of this kind of crap but Mr Wilson is a very interesting man that is good.
David Wilson is brilliant
Maybe he was a secret gay person because he killed her before they went to Spain. She was way too good looking for him. They should find out what he did while he was there.
a male goldigger who would have thought poor helen
Every April 11th I think About Helen and Boris
No,no you don’t…
Classic dodgy look. Looks like that hairy boy that used to play for Bulgaria
Looks like Boris Johnson. It's a British thing
Who was the boy who opened the door?
His son from a previous relationship .
Hi Juliet, that was myself playing Ian Stewart's son from his relationship with his first wife, as Alicia pointed out. :)
'A very British crime'
Screw you American guy! 😅
It's a good video but there is no confession here and not accused of being a serial killer so the title is not really accurate.
It's a rubbish, badly constructed production.
shut up and watch It
Last
😂😁
he's not a serial killer
Scruffy get could do with a haircut and a good bath
That intro is too long
where is the so called confession?
Awfull music
😄😅
cutting edge lip sync technology..😂😂😂 nice try.
Ye dramatisation scenes are well naff.
Wouldn't happen in the USA this guy is a joke
wtf
Very British!
Stewart Scottish by descent. Typical
I can’t believe that they pay so many bullshit Artists to create a program where all they do is point out the obvious. And pretend that it
Was thanks to them this and other crimes are solved. I love watching crime shows and follow how great and hard working policemen and
Detectives solve crimes and Prevent others. As much as I love watching these cops, I hate the Psychological bullshit spat out after all
Said and done. Get rid of the TV Psycho babblers. I know there are great crime scene Analysts. But please not after the fact BS. Thank you.
Subbed
Wierd.. been married for 15 years I can't think of my wife's eye color either. I'm going with brown. I do remember her birthday at least.