***Day 4 -Committal Hearing*** 18th,19,20th March 2013***

[Groundedgirl]

About her clothes, hopefully the police went through her wardrobe to check on the sizes. Good thinking. Maybe they were mummy dearest's.
I believe her hair was a freeby due to not being happy with the last 'do'.

I am a baggy clothes junkie. I am not comfortable until I lose my size 12s and don my xxl sweats and/or pjs in a size 24. If it has a drawstring waist and its huge its mine. Wouldn't wear them outside though, ever.

 

[CaseClosed]

I'm really confused by the financials. Words are my bag, numbers are not! Can anyone explain the true state of things? My limited understanding was that he had a mill or so in debts, while things like super, life insurance, rent roll, abc's property were assets, however some were not able to be obtained (life insurance) or contingent on mitigating factors (rent roll holding value, property selling for valuation figure - which it didn't) etc. anyone could argue solvancy if you stretch it enough, but if he came down to the wire, he wouldn't have been able to pay all his debts and keep the business running using the assets they have referenced. Is that right or have I misunderstood? I don't understand how they can say he was solvent when some of his assets couldn't be accessed.

I'm so confused! Help!

IMO Davis was just disrupting! Because the lay person does not understand balance sheets and things like that, he can then basically say anything and the average person will be confused (like us). But the point that I consider important is that he owes a lot of money to a lot of people and he knew he was in dire financial situation, regardles of what Davis is trying to achieve with his comments. IMO.

 

[wewillgetyou]

Now for TM - I don't know where to start.

When they called her as a witness it was taking ages for her to appear. I thought perhaps she was very nervous or upset outside the courtroom. I started timing after quite a bit of time had passed, and it was another 6 minutes.
Mr Boyles assistant went outside eventually to check on things. Also sitting at the back of the court area ( immediately in front of the family's section) were 2 men in suits. I thought they looked like under cover police or detectives.

When TM came in I was quite shocked as she was not as thin as the photos we have seen. She was wearing high heels, and a short unflattering skirt. Her hair was long and dark. She looked terrified.

Mr Davis asked his questions and quite often at the beginning she was just nodding in response. He eventually said she needed to actually speak her answers.

I think he had it in for her from the word go - understandably.

My impression was she gave answers but not elaborate any more then she needed unless he really pushed her. I came away with the opinion that I don't think she is telling the whole truth and I think that she is still in love with GBC.
I think she was very nervous answering the questions when she was sitting right opposite GBC.

When we had a 15-20 minute break she left via the judges entry / exit door with the two men who had been sitting at the back of the room.

During her time in the court a sketch artist came in. I offered and swapped seats with him so he could see her better. He whispered that the media hadnt been able to get any photos which is why he was there.

When her time was over I actually missed her leaving. I was too busy watching the media fall over themselves trying to get out of the court to presumably catch up with her.

 

[CaseClosed]

If the general impression of those that were in Court today is that TM still loves GBC, then it could work out in the Prosecutions favour. By that I mean that the Defence could not classify her as a "woman scorned" trying to sink her ex and would not attack her in that sense. IMO.

 

[Groundedgirl]

I'm really confused by the financials. Words are my bag, numbers are not! Can anyone explain the true state of things? My limited understanding was that he had a mill or so in debts, while things like super, life insurance, rent roll, abc's property were assets, however some were not able to be obtained (life insurance) or contingent on mitigating factors (rent roll holding value, property selling for valuation figure - which it didn't) etc. anyone could argue solvancy if you stretch it enough, but if he came down to the wire, he wouldn't have been able to pay all his debts and keep the business running using the assets they have referenced. Is that right or have I misunderstood? I don't understand how they can say he was solvent when some of his assets couldn't be accessed.

I'm so confused! Help!

I didn't get all the info in the report to make those assessments. I would need the monthly income and expenditure accounts to make an accurate assessment. But, there was a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This strategy can only work for a short time and I think it had come to an end. There are red flags in the accounting reports and ill post these at a later time..

 

[Sleuthis-maximus]

Hi Sleuthis, I wouldn't say she was distraught. At times her voice would crack and she shed a few tears, certainly not distraught. There was a 15-20 min break during her testimony, when she came back into the court room and sat down a couple of minutes later GBC was brought back in and I noticed her giving him quick glances, like she wanted to look at him but didn't want to be seen doing so. I didn't notice any sign of communication between them.

Thanks for this - I really wanted to be there today but work I might get a chance to swing in tomoz afternoon from 3pm

 

[Champagne4lulu]

IMO Davis was just disrupting! Because the lay person does not understand balance sheets and things like that, he can then basically say anything and the average person will be confused (like us). But the point that I consider important is that he owes a lot of money to a lot of people and he knew he was in dire financial situation, regardles of what Davis is trying to achieve with his comments. IMO.

Thanks cc! I guess I'm trying to understand what happens if this goes to trial. The financial pressure is a good portion of the crown case so I really want to understand it. What things are admissible as evidence and what aren't? If loans aren't with institutions and are unsecured or not formalised (gentlemans agreements) are they able to be discussed? Could that be hearsay? If they are taking valuations on things like that property or the rent roll but their actual value was substantially less, it really could create some doubt as a motive.

It seems to be a pretty critical element so I just really want to understand it (not easy for someone like me with such a strong dislike of numbers!)

 

[whatif?]

Or for her own safety!

Makara you could be right there. There was a gentleman sitting in front of the first row of seats when I got there. I hadn't seen anyone else sit there while I've been there. When TM first came in she had a gentleman come in with her and he sat next to the first man. When we adjourned for a short break they stood in between the first row of seating (where family sits) and TM as if they were guarding her, I assumed incase there was some confrontation, and they left with her.

 

[Champagne4lulu]

For those there, what makes you think she still loves him? I can't believe with all she now knows that she could still have feelings for him. I find that very sad.

Also, was anyone able to see his reaction when she came in or was on the stand? Facial expressions etc?

 

[CaseClosed]

Thanks cc! I guess I'm trying to understand what happens if this goes to trial. The financial pressure is a good portion of the crown case so I really want to understand it. What things are admissible as evidence and what aren't? If loans aren't with institutions and are unsecured or not formalised (gentlemans agreements) are they able to be discussed? Could that be hearsay? If they are taking valuations on things like that property or the rent roll but their actual value was substantially less, it really could create some doubt as a motive.

It seems to be a pretty critical element so I just really want to understand it (not easy for someone like me with such a strong dislike of numbers!)

If this goes to trial (which I think will be the case), I bet the Defence will have their own forensic accountants present their analysis and then it will be up to the Prosecution to shoot them down. If GBC was at a point where he could not meet his monthly payment (credit cards, debts to the ex business partners, etc.) to me that is being insolvent. We all know that accounts can be manipulated to some extend. We have also testimonies from the ex partners indicating the business was in serious trouble. Davis is just stirring the pot, iMO.

 

[wewillgetyou]

Just remembered after mr Davis had finished questioning her then Mr Boyle asked a couple of questions about her answers she had given. In one of her replays she said " I don't know Danny, I just can't remember"

Before the questioning by Mr Davis started Mr Boyle in his opening introduction presented a copy of a hand drawn map to her and asked if she had seen the handwriting before. She said she had.

I'm still surprised that she seemingly doesn't have a lawyer. If I'd been the mistress of a man that was assumed to be the murderer of his wife I sure as hell would have a lawyer !

 

[Thinking]

I wonder why OW didn't go right up to GBC today do you think she was warned against speaking with him & was the lady who went up to the dock & crowded OW's conversation & glaring with him there today?
That lady gets my yay for the month! Good on you! I like your spine. She wasnt impressed with OW's hide either. Allison has support too!

Yes she was there

 

[Snails]

I didn't get all the info in the report to make those assessments. I would need the monthly income and expenditure accounts to make an accurate assessment. But, there was a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This strategy can only work for a short time and I think it had come to an end. There are red flags in the accounting reports and ill post these at a later time..

For me, the red flag is the credit card debt. We have business and personal credit cards with quite high limits (40k +). If our business was in trouble (which it isn't) the credit cards would be the last to be paid. We would pay our creditors first, credit card last.

 

[CaseClosed]

Just remembered after mr Davis had finished questioning her then Mr Boyle asked a couple of questions about her answers she had given. In one of her replays she said " I don't know Danny, I just can't remember"

Before the questioning by Mr Davis started Mr Boyle in his opening introduction presented a copy of a hand drawn map to her and asked if she had seen the handwriting before. She said she had.

I'm still surprised that she seemingly doesn't have a lawyer. If I'd been the mistress of a man that was assumed to be the murderer of his wife I sure as hell would have a lawyer !

Although I would assume she has consulted a lawyer, she really doesn't need one. She is not accused of any crime. She is just a witness.

 

[Champagne4lulu]

Thanks Cc that sounds promising. Couldn't figure out how I got it so wrong! Sounds like Davis just trying to confuse the issue.

Thanks

 

[wewillgetyou]

It's hard to say why I think she still loves GBC.

I guess it's the way she speaks of him. How she thought they would be together, even after past hurdles.

It's the way she answers questions - in a caring sort of way, not in a " I hate you GBC " way.

I found sometimes that it took her a long time to actually answer a question. I even thought to myself at one stage that I thought perhaps she might be on some sort of calming drug. She spoke softly and slowly mostly.

 

[BJsleuth]

Makara you could be right there. There was a gentleman sitting in front of the first row of seats when I got there. I hadn't seen anyone else sit there while I've been there. When TM first came in she had a gentleman come in with her and he sat next to the first man. When we adjourned for a short break they stood in between the first row of seating (where family sits) and TM as if they were guarding her, I assumed incase there was some confrontation, and they left with her.

Maybe her lawyer. I'm sure they would have advised her to just stick to her statement and like CC said, it's better if she doesn't come off bitter and twisted.

 

[wewillgetyou]

I know she is presumed innocent and therefore doesn't need a lawyer but I just thought maybe it might help to guide her in answering questions. I dunno, sorry, not explaining myself very well :blushing:

 

[Liadan]

Just remembered after mr Davis had finished questioning her then Mr Boyle asked a couple of questions about her answers she had given. In one of her replays she said " I don't know Danny, I just can't remember"

Before the questioning by Mr Davis started Mr Boyle in his opening introduction presented a copy of a hand drawn map to her and asked if she had seen the handwriting before. She said she had.

I'm still surprised that she seemingly doesn't have a lawyer. If I'd been the mistress of a man that was assumed to be the murderer of his wife I sure as hell would have a lawyer !

Pretty sure she lawyered up early on in the case after her first statement or thereabouts.

 

[CaseClosed]

I'm not surprised that she has apparently "protection". She is one of the main witnesses for the prosecution and because of the nature of her relationship with GBC, she is a target for abuse from public and media. Although I dislike any person who has an affair with a married person, I do feel she is getting more that what she bargained for. I am not defending her, but she did not envisage being eventually linked to an alleged murderer accused of killing her rival.