Champagne4lulu
Active Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 34
Edited
... It just seems so wrong that something that was meant for Alison and her brother primarily (and their partners) could be liquididated to fund her accused murderer's defense.
Is there like a not benefitting from "proceeds of crime" type of thing that applies? I know it's not that but surely there's something similar that would be applicable?
It is blatantly obvious that morally this is not fair but again, you need to take a step back and realise these are the actions of someone and their family in the depths of desparation - like I said, the actions of a drowning man.
We can all get on our high horse and proclaim that it is wrong, but if YOU were OW and it was YOUR brother accused and IF (ok, big if here) you thought, really thought, that he would be incapable of the crime he was accused of, and if you so desparately wanted to believe in his innocence, then you would do EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING to raise the surety required to try to pay for his legal team.
I know I would.
And let's just suppose, for one minute, that he is innocent (not that it appears likely, granted), then baying for blood seems unwarranted until the full facts of the case are revealed in due course.
Just MOO FWIW
Well personally I'm not baying for blood. I want the right person to be convicted of their crime. Whether GBC or someone else. My point in the previous post is that it doesn't seem legit to me. And in the very least Allison's share of all this should have gone to her kids. That's all. It's deceptive and it just seems odd to me. I don't dispute anyone's right to defend themselves or their family but at the expense of your family or the law?
May I make a brief comment relating to possible parallels with the murder case in discussion? Prosecutors in the above case faced enormous hurdles. They had no physical evidence tying the alleged murderer to the scene; they had to establish that is was 'murder'. Prosecutors were forced to build their case on circumstantial and heresy evidence setting a precedent before a Jury Conviction for the murder of his 3rd wife. This follows on the back of a recent Tasmanian case where the alleged murderer was also convicted on substantial circumstantial evidence - viewed as precedent. IMO:yesss: I've been following this case for years!
Spousal murder is more evil than I can describe. When I think of those who are watching the person they promised to love forever getting ready to kill them - it chills me to the bone. If I could, I would put all spousal murderers in the middle of a desolate desert and let them all eat rattlesnakes. Just sayin'.
:snake:
It is blatantly obvious that morally this is not fair but again, you need to take a step back and realise these are the actions of someone and their family in the depths of desparation - like I said, the actions of a drowning man.
We can all get on our high horse and proclaim that it is wrong, but if YOU were OW and it was YOUR brother accused and IF (ok, big if here) you thought, really thought, that he would be incapable of the crime he was accused of, and if you so desparately wanted to believe in his innocence, then you would do EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING to raise the surety required to try to pay for his legal team.
I know I would.
And let's just suppose, for one minute, that he is innocent (not that it appears likely, granted), then baying for blood seems unwarranted until the full facts of the case are revealed in due course.
Just MOO FWIW
So where do things stand now do you think? Will he get it all? Or enough to cover his fees? What options do the dickies have to halt the sale or claim interest In Alison/Ashley's share - if any? It just seems so wrong that something that was meant for Alison and her brother primarily (and their partners) could be liquididated to fund her accused murderer's defense.
Is there like a not benefitting from "proceeds of crime" type of thing that applies? I know it's not that but surely there's something similar that would be applicable?
Oakington - yes this is indeed BC's point of view the flipside- and they need money but seriously would I do it secretly - no! Would I do it with fairness and consideration for the Dickies and all parties involved -you betcha! They need to sell the assets to raise money for the defence completely understandable but the ways and means they did this was almost thinly veiled fraud.
Methinks that there is more to all of this than meets the normal honest eyes.
We may have to be very patient until such time as all is revealed.
Slightly OT, but is it only me who sees the irony in the so called Top Step of the World P/L or whatever ridiculously altruistic name was chosen?
Should've been House of Cards in hindsight....
...
GBC is entitled to use his own assets and that includes any share of the sale proceeds that lawfully may be paid to him, to fund his legal defence. In the legal system he is innocent until proven guilty and can't be denied his own assets to try to defend himself.
Actually, yes, given the situation, the tide of public opinion firmly and unwaveringly against them, the need for urgency and the ever mounting legal fees and stress related to that, then yes, in all probability, I would.
Put yourself for one minute in OW's shoes, however distasteful it seems to you. Become neutral and think - really think about - what YOU would do in her situation.
They believe the children are okay and being taken care of.
Their actions are desperate and all consuming.
The need for funds - quickly - would override any other feelings, both morally and or ethically, that may have been present before this whole situation arose.
I personally would be doing all and everything in my power to try to extracate my brother and family from this mess.
So, I believe, would you...
Sorry Oakington - A 100x no. I know you are asking me to be the devils advocate. Appreciate that! And yes the tide of the public opinion is against him he needs fast money. Those assets are part of a company that his late wife and he shared. Just because no one is watching or has to know is not an excuse for lets hurry up and get the money. If he has control of the company then he can still dispose of his assets and collect the cash. And that is not my voice only. There is no way on earth my solicitor would sanction or advise me not to notify all parties - they were his to sell and that sale could go ahead honestly without the Dickies then why the cloak and dagger tactics.
Sorry Oakington - A 100x no. I know you are asking me to be the devils advocate. Appreciate that! And yes the tide of the public opinion is against him he needs fast money. Those assets are part of a company that his late wife and he shared. Just because no one is watching or has to know is not an excuse for lets hurry up and get the money. If he has control of the company then he can still dispose of his assets and collect the cash. And that is not my voice only. There is no way on earth my solicitor would sanction or advise me not to notify all parties - they were his to sell and that sale could go ahead honestly without the Dickies then why the cloak and dagger tactics.
Actually, yes, given the situation, the tide of public opinion firmly and unwaveringly against them, the need for urgency and the ever mounting legal fees and stress related to that, then yes, in all probability, I would.
Put yourself for one minute in OW's shoes, however distasteful it seems to you. Become neutral and think - really think about - what YOU would do in her situation.
They believe the children are okay and being taken care of.
Their actions are desperate and all consuming.
The need for funds - quickly - would override any other feelings, both morally and or ethically, that may have been present before this whole situation arose.
I personally would be doing all and everything in my power to try to extracate my brother and family from this mess.
So, I believe, would you...