Found Deceased Australia - Melissa Caddick, 49, Sydney, NSW, 12 Nov 2020 #6

[JLZ]

I keep changing my mind about this case

It's so totally obvious what has happened though.

Just remember that when MC went missing she was wearing the same clothes she wore when ASIC raided her home 24hrs beforehand.

Who goes to bed in the clothes they wore all day then gets up in the morning and goes out without changing them?

If so, why? Does the why fit in with things police have been told?

If police can't rule out from CCTV Melissa walking from home to the cliffs, can they rule out that she was driven there?

 

[minime9]

I think she had the spreadsheets set up for each client with all the formulas at the ready.
All she needed to do each month or whenever a statement was due was to see the best performing shares for the previous month and insert the new date, amounts the shares were now worth and merge all fields.
It would automatically complete all the rest of the data. I think it would take her no longer than an hour a month to do this for all 60 accounts...

Exactly. It really isn’t hard sadly.

 

[Estelle]

I don't think money can be paid out until the Coroner declares MC deceased....

A death is a coroner's case if it is unexpected or if there is any possibility that a law has been broken. The forensic pathologist will provide a Medical Examination Report to the coroner. This report may take up to several months, but sometimes longer.

How long does a coroner's inquest take? The coroner will make sure the inquest is held as soon as possible after the death – if possible, within 6 months. They will tell you if more time is needed and what to expect. The hearing itself could take anything between half an hour to a week.

If the cause of death cannot be immediately established at the time of the post-mortem examination the Coroner will commence an Investigation which may or may not include an Inquest. ... The Coroner will also provide the paperwork either for cremation or burial to the funeral director.

The 3 stages of a Death Investigation are Examination, Correlation, and Interpretation.

 

[Redrunner]

May I please ask why the previous threads were deleted?

My very own question too, but now I understand. So we are pretty much limited in what we can discuss, or joke about, sad but inevitable, given the situation.

 

[Estelle]

I think she had the spreadsheets set up for each client with all the formulas at the ready.
All she needed to do each month or whenever a statement was due was to see the best performing shares for the previous month and insert the new date, amounts the shares were now worth and merge all fields.
It would automatically complete all the rest of the data. I think it would take her no longer than an hour a month to do this for all 60 accounts...

From Caddick’s investment strategy: Our portfolio management strategy is a simple one. We maintain our strategy always, we provide clients with the information we have agreed and we identify stocks in the Australian Market that offer both income and growth to outperform the All Ordinaries Index. I personally have exposure to all stocks that are held in client portfolios. This does not present a conflict of interest. This provides comfort to clients that I personally have the same exposure and risk. At anytime we hold up to a maximum of 10 stocks listed on the ASX. These are large to medium cap stocks. We require up to 50% autonomy on your portfolio at anytime. We require this so that we do not miss opportunities presented in the market. If you are not comfortable with this level of autonomy please let me know."

Thanks, Mr Murphy, for pointing this out. I used to wonder how she could have done it with over 60 clients especially if they all had different shares in each portfolio.

I now understand that MC must have set up each portfolio to have the same shares with different percentage amounts. As she had 50% autonomy, she then did not need to waste her time phoning clients to ask them if they wanted to buy or sell any of the shares. She simply chose the best up to ten performing shares for the past month, and insert the new date. No need to advise them what she sold the previous shares for or what price she bought the new shares for? Just deleted the underperformers and added the best performers.

I would have smelt a rat if I had not been consulted first as this is not how financial advisers work. I am always consulted first. But they signed to give her 50% autonomy and never seem to have wanted to insist on their own 50% autonomy. I don't know how that would work anyway.

What a simple solution to managing so many portfolios!

 

[JLZ]

From Caddick’s investment strategy: Our portfolio management strategy is a simple one. We maintain our strategy always, we provide clients with the information we have agreed and we identify stocks in the Australian Market that offer both income and growth to outperform the All Ordinaries Index. I personally have exposure to all stocks that are held in client portfolios. This does not present a conflict of interest. This provides comfort to clients that I personally have the same exposure and risk. At anytime we hold up to a maximum of 10 stocks listed on the ASX. These are large to medium cap stocks. We require up to 50% autonomy on your portfolio at anytime. We require this so that we do not miss opportunities presented in the market. If you are not comfortable with this level of autonomy please let me know."

Thanks, Mr Murphy, for pointing this out. I used to wonder how she could have done it with over 60 clients especially if they all had different shares in each portfolio.

I now understand that MC must have set up each portfolio to have the same shares with different percentage amounts. As she had 50% autonomy, she then did not need to waste her time phoning clients to ask them if they wanted to buy or sell any of the shares. She simply chose the best up to ten performing shares for the past month, and insert the new date. No need to advise them what she sold the previous shares for or what price she bought the new shares for? Just deleted the underperformers and added the best performers.

I would have smelt a rat if I had not been consulted first as this is not how financial advisers work. I am always consulted first. But they signed to give her 50% autonomy and never seem to have wanted to insist on their own 50% autonomy. I don't know how that would work anyway.

What a simple solution to managing so many portfolios!

It's not the way advisers work but it is the way fund managers work. Most of the time you don't know a fund's investment and divestment actions until after those events, if at all. Melissa told somebody she was a fund manager as well as an adviser--so an unregistered scheme if anyone had bothered to check.

Yes, I don't understand what 50% autonomy would mean either. And the word "simple" is always a flag to me. It's covering something complicated they don't want to tell you.

 

[Estelle]

It's not the way advisers work but it is the way fund managers work. Most of the time you don't know a fund's investment and divestment actions until after those events, if at all. Melissa told somebody she was a fund manager as well as an adviser--so an unregistered scheme if anyone had bothered to check.

Yes, I don't understand what 50% autonomy would mean either. And the word "simple" is always a flag to me. It's covering something complicated they don't want to tell you.

Yes that makes sense. Perhaps some or all the investors were told it was a private fund that MC had set up just for friends or "special" people.

But does this make sense?

“She had a story and the story was that she had worked for another company, and she and two other people had built this program,” she revealed. “And it was such an amazing program that one of the superannuation houses bought it out. Her share of that money was $86 million and she was not allowed to work in the industry for ten years.” Caddick also told her victims that now, having made enough money for herself, she simply wanted to help her friends get rich.

These are the questions I would have wondered about:
$86 million? So why did she live in a house worth only $6.2m? What had she invested in herself since?
Which industry does she mean? The financial services industry? Isn't superannuation investment is part of the financial services industry?
So if she was not allowed to work in the financial services industry for ten years, what was she doing recommending that I invest in her "fund" or a share portfolio with her as that is still part of the financial services industry. What date was she banned? Why did she still have a current FS licence? Does being a fund manager require a different licence? What is the "fund" called? Caddick Investment Fund?

 

[JLZ]

Yes that makes sense. Perhaps some or all the investors were told it was a private fund that MC had set up just for friends or "special" people.

But does this make sense?

“She had a story and the story was that she had worked for another company, and she and two other people had built this program,” she revealed. “And it was such an amazing program that one of the superannuation houses bought it out. Her share of that money was $86 million and she was not allowed to work in the industry for ten years.” Caddick also told her victims that now, having made enough money for herself, she simply wanted to help her friends get rich.

These are the questions I would have wondered about:
$86 million? So why did she live in a house worth only $6.2m? What had she invested in herself since?
Which industry does she mean? The financial services industry? Isn't superannuation investment is part of the financial services industry?
So if she was not allowed to work in the financial services industry for ten years, what was she doing recommending that I invest in her "fund" or a share portfolio with her as that is still part of the financial services industry. What date was she banned? Why did she still have a current FS licence? Does being a fund manager require a different licence? What is the "fund" called? Caddick Investment Fund?

That about not being allowed to work in the industry for ten years could be the explanation she offered for not having a license in her own name--in case anyone checked. I don't see that a ban is implied; it would have been a legal agreement, a condition connected with the sale of the program. But what sort of program? Computer program? Is it plausible she had the skills for that? She didn't claim a qualification that would be relevant. If she made her money from selling a program she developed, she didn't make it from investing in the stockmarket, so doesn't that detract from her credibility as a brilliant wealth manager?

No it doesn't make sense. Some of the investors should have known better. One worked in financial risk management for a very large retailer. But that's leaving out of account the psychological manipulations.

 

[BlueViolet]

I have been hoping that Sydney’s weather over the weekend would have unearthed something so everyone has some very much needed closure.

 

[OwlHeart]

I don't think that we can necessarily assume that she wore the same clothes as what she had on during the raid - only the same ASIC shoes. She could have had two pairs of the same shoe for that matter. If she was going to hide away, it is unlikely that she would wear high heels. I imagine that when she was not seeing clients, she could probably have worn her gym wear all day or, after a shower after her gym work, put on something similar. I don't imagine that AK would be observant enough to be able to tell police what was missing from her wardrobe.

On the other hand, if she escaped immediately after the raid and was alive for some months later, it is very likely that she only had the clothes she had on at the time of the raid and had to wear them every day washing them over night. As it was summer, they would dry overnight.

Would the police have asked AK to provide the clothes MC was wearing during the raid?

They'd have to be somewhere in the house, the laundry basket, on the bedroom floor (I doubt it) in the washing machine etc

If AK couldn't give the police those clothes then that would be suggesting she went missing in them which paints a picture of the events leading up to 5:30am "run".

 

[Trooper]

That about not being allowed to work in the industry for ten years could be the explanation she offered for not having a license in her own name--in case anyone checked. I don't see that a ban is implied; it would have been a legal agreement, a condition connected with the sale of the program. But what sort of program? Computer program? Is it plausible she had the skills for that? She didn't claim a qualification that would be relevant. If she made her money from selling a program she developed, she didn't make it from investing in the stockmarket, so doesn't that detract from her credibility as a brilliant wealth manager?

No it doesn't make sense. Some of the investors should have known better. One worked in financial risk management for a very large retailer. But that's leaving out of account the psychological manipulations.

That bit about not being able to work in the industry for ten years has a certain clang of truth to it. Not the part where she was so successful that everyone jacked up and wouldn't let her play, so she took the money and went home. No. I think that really was part of her being allowed to quietly leave some financial orgs, without the police being brought into it.

Every good lie has a bit of truth in it. Last year, when I read that bit about the ten years thingy, I asked a friend in the same sort of business and he said that's exactly what happens, people rotate in and out of firms, after being pushed out , some get a blanket ban for years on the quiet among all the firms, for outrageous embezzlement, and some just get a short shove out to pasture to think about things..

I believe she did tell those people she left with 86 million. Of course, that isn't true, but to use a sort of Melissa way of putting things across 'it might have been true!'.... They would have thought she had a nice nest egg to fall back on, but most of all, they would feel assured that with that much money she would have no need to hive off their money. Little did they know.

 

[OwlHeart]

If police can't rule out from CCTV Melissa walking from home to the cliffs, can they rule out that she was driven there?

Maybe she dressed in black and went ninja over the rooftops.

Although the idea of this is a bit humourous, I'm deadly serious.

Admittedly I have no idea the distance between the houses.

Ninja turtles? Down the drain?

 

[Trooper]

The main thing is, what ever she told people, and generally speaking , she kept to the same yarn, just in case there might one day be a social connection, whatever story it was, it was designed for one thing. To reassure, to entice, to inspire, to appeal to one's sense of entitlement, to offer exclusive membership in a successful group, to inject buckets of confidence in the 'investor', to keep the 'investor' absolutely sanguine, calm, happy , loved and appreciated. Having achieved this, the money could be extracted , gently, firmly, permanently.

What ever elements of her story that she used with her 'clients' had to cover all these bases as well as the normal human requirements, such as trust, humour, reliability, admiration, etc.. .

 

[JLZ]

Maybe she dressed in black and went ninja over the rooftops.

Although the idea of this is a bit humourous, I'm deadly serious.

Admittedly I have no idea the distance between the houses.

Ninja turtles? Down the drain?

No. Even if she could have done it physically, it only would have taken her to the edge of the block, an intersecting street. No closer to the coast. If she was leaving to suicide she had no reason to be particularly secret about the means of escape. If she was murdered it was probably by the usual suspect in which case she probably left in a car. The only other alternative I take seriously is that she went to meet someone. (And died promptly, not after hiding for several months.)

 

[OwlHeart]

That about not being allowed to work in the industry for ten years could be the explanation she offered for not having a license in her own name--in case anyone checked. I don't see that a ban is implied; it would have been a legal agreement, a condition connected with the sale of the program. But what sort of program? Computer program? Is it plausible she had the skills for that? She didn't claim a qualification that would be relevant. If she made her money from selling a program she developed, she didn't make it from investing in the stockmarket, so doesn't that detract from her credibility as a brilliant wealth manager?

No it doesn't make sense. Some of the investors should have known better. One worked in financial risk management for a very large retailer. But that's leaving out of account the psychological manipulations.

When I watched the 60mins episode on MC I concluded that a whole lot of sexual innuendos were being made in the company of a certain couple, of which one person in the relationship was mesmerised by MC. MC knew EXACTLY what she was doing in that situation.

The "personal things" discussed between them would have included very frank admissions and details about intimate matters, these conversations would be the source of anger, humiliation and disbelief now when seen for what they really were, being seduced into foolishly giving money away.

 

[OwlHeart]

No. Even if she could have done it physically, it only would have taken her to the edge of the block, an intersecting street. No closer to the coast. If she was leaving to suicide she had no reason to be particularly secret about the means of escape. If she was murdered it was probably by the usual suspect in which case she probably left in a car. The only other alternative I take seriously is that she went to meet someone. (And died promptly, not after hiding for several months.)

I agree when you put it like that. I knew nothing of the area before and only know slightly more now.

What gets me is there is no mention of a car the police are interested in.
Wouldn't you assume if she was picked up that CCTV somewhere got the vehicle?

I am leaning towards the marina. The docks. I know nothing of the place but I might go research unless someone in the group can break it down for me?

 

[OwlHeart]

I have been hoping that Sydney’s weather over the weekend would have unearthed something so everyone has some very much needed closure.

Another full moon will be upon us in about a week. She's half full tonight so.. Something will be revealed, what and to whom remains to be seen.

 

[JLZ]

I agree when you put it like that. I knew nothing of the area before and only know slightly more now.

What gets me is there is no mention of a car the police are interested in.
Wouldn't you assume if she was picked up that CCTV somewhere got the vehicle?

I am leaning towards the marina. The docks. I know nothing of the place but I might go research unless someone in the group can break it down for me?

I don't know the area except for what I see on Google Maps satellite view (and streetview). Melissa's home is three blocks from the cliffs. I don't know what marina/docks you mean.

 

[BlueViolet]

Rose Bay Marina, perhaps? It’s less than 3km away

 

[JLZ]

Rose Bay Marina, perhaps?

It's a walkable distance, depending on the sore foot, but being much further than the cliffs there would be more chance of getting picked up on CCTV.