Amee, Bayside, bearbear, BreakingNews, crazee, Curiousasacat, Cyansea, Daisyinthedesert, DunnoZo, Fergie, Firesnake, Gemini Girl, Indromum, itsthevibe, Keentoknow, KG1, LauraMars, Le Metro, linette, Makara, minni, Mountain Misst, Mystique75, Nads, Onlyone, Ooohm, possumheart, Prentiss, Rational, STELLA85, Thinking, UnfoldingTruth, Venus13
After spending a lot of time contemplating on the reading of how to conduct fraud. Basically its a free rein for an individual with their own company- they are no checks and processes that money has to be accounted for - the tax office can be held at arms length with two sets of books. (I reckon there are 15 in GBC's case!) And really these people have immigrated from Zimbabwe - so who knows what sort of offshore accounts existed for them in that country. I wouldn't be putting any money into a Rhodesian/Zim bank way too risky with government being so unstable. So perhaps this is their modus operandi because they already had these accounts established they continued to use them while in Oz. You are not allowed to bring bucket loads of cash into Oz but you can use any money you earned overseas in that country or elsewhere without the tax man needing to know about it. At least that is what I am reading.
To me this appears as a HUGE tax minimization scheme. I am thinking quite a bit of the company money was siphoned off to an account overseas that was kept armslength for the Australian business. Then perhaps the overseas company bought the property and the shares etc seemingly untouched by the BC's? The link to Canada is also strong - do they have accounts there for when they visit Adam?
Also I don't think lawyers would mind picking up wads of cash in instalments or having an overseas credit card to spend up big in Bora Bora or the Bahamas if indeed there was the overseas bank account that the BC's could use to fund the defence for GBC. This is the fight of his life. There is going to be no greater need for the money than to fight for his freedom so it is a wise choice now to pull out all stops for the defence lawyers.
Please note that absolutely none of this is FACT AT ALL - it is just my musings and my humble opinion!
IMHO MOO MOO MOO
Reckon we could ask Mountain Misst, Woof and Indogwetrust to enlighten us about the meaning of dogs howling? ...
Over and out for tonight.
So, in my humble opinion, whether or not they accept a guilty plea for manslaughter instead of murder will depend on how strong the evidence that they have against the defendant is and how likely they think that the jury will favour a guilty verdict. I personally don't believe that they will accept the lesser charge if they have a strong case (meaning strong evidence, witnesses capable of testifying etc.) for the greater charge.
Obviously this is all hypothetical as at this point in time we have no evidence to suggest that anyone is even considering pleading guilty to a lesser charge at this point in time.
All of this is my humble and honest opinion as we wait for justice to unfold for Allison.
Last edited by Seeking; 07-11-2012 at 07:50 AM. Reason: extra words
There was a member of a Brisbane Baptist church listed as one of the people offering surety if GBC skipped bail (Dr I. Thomas) but this was his personal money (he's a wealthy specialist doctor) not church funds. Churches are run like businesses these days and they all have budgets to meet similar to retail sales targets. They have to pay their pastors, church admin workers, missionaries sent by the church and pay their bills. Huge slush funds to pay for relatives of Baptist pastors who get themselves into trouble aren't factored in to a church budget. IMO.
This thread will be closing in 10 minutes. Please proceed to the newest thread, located at the link below:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178409"]Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #33 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
Thank you for your post and I am sorry that your daughter felt that her gesture was not appreciated.
Your insights into the circumstance and reality around Allison's murder are very much appreciated and I hope you will stick around longer, not just to lurk.
The thing to remember is that for every circumstantial case such as this the over-riding thing that is paramount is:
MEANS, OPPORTUNITY, MOTIVE
circumstantial or not the question that remains for BC legal team to work on will be trying to disprove that GBC would appear to be the only person who beyond reasonable doubt was likely involved in this sad case that could have potentially murdered ABC.
Ie. If he didn't do it then who else had means, opportunity & motive?
Unless she DID walk late at night or very early the next morning then the logical conclusion is foul play at home. It's just a little too convenient to think that if she walked out that night, hair done and all that, that someone was there and that a very rare and highly opportunistic monent arrived resulting in killing someone randomly.
So, who else could have done it? Someone will be accountable. Her autopsy will speak loudly, perhaps so will the forensic accountants findings.
Lastly. If GBC remains adamant he was not involved then WHO does HE think ended his angels life? He'd have rolled on TM, NBC would not have M.O.M. one would think & I doubt ABC would kill herself.
Suspect lists are narrowed. Until there is only 1 person (+ possible accessory) that had had M.O.M.. It was the same with Sica. Dead people speak really loudly when foul play is at hand.
I would not like to be in GBCs position at all. Unless something truly startling and very strange indeed pops up to seriously lead jurors to believe GBC wasn't involved and someone else had M.O.M. then his odds aren't that great seemingly. He can say he didn't do it, wasn't involved till the cows come home. Fact remains someone did this and he appears to have a huge amount of M.O.M at this time and no one else does.
All of this is my own opinion & surmising. It is not fact just what I think. Take it or leave it😊