Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Puddytats - A summary of the last 18 months of hell (this will be long and i hope will answer akll questions)

364 replies

puddytats · 24/09/2006 20:29

Dear all

I have decided to start a new thread on this and run thro everything from the beginning, if you get to the end then thankyou for reading and well done. If you have any questions please ask, i will answer as fully as I am able considering i do not, and will never know the full facts.

Here goes...

On the 12 May 2005 DD was born. On the 13th June DH returned to work after paternity leave. He got to work as usual at 9.30ish and was met in the lobby by head of HR and immediatly taken into the boardroom. He was told that discrepancies had appearded on a firm he was working on but this was not a disiplinary, simply a meeting to establish facts. DH was shocked and stunned. He was asked variuos questions including whether he knew what was going on. He said he had no idea. He was then suspended on full pay while further investigations took place. He returned home and we tried to piece together what had happened.
Records at work show that a ficticious member was made up on a real client and that DH did work on this client, including the issuing of a cheque. His computer initials were over everything. Work decided that DH was at fault at dismissed his.
As this was taking place the police also knocked on our door. DH was arrested and all paperwork relating to financial records were taken away - including all the work we had done ourselves. It transpired that 3 cheques 'passed' thrioough our bank account - one in joint bank and 2 in dh sole account. DH was adviced to no comment throughout the interview, which he did. Because of this and because one of the cheques was in joint account the police arrested me.
Names on the cheques had been changed after they were signed by the partners at DH work, we know this because there are photocopiers of the cheques before signiture and from the bank after cashing. They had been changed to either our current surname or my maiden name. The police handwriting expert said it was likely to be DH handwriting. A certified copy of our marriage certificate was also provided with the one in my maiden name.
A little of the money was moved round our variuos accounts and the rest was taken out one way or another. It would seem that everything other than the initial paying in and one cheque withdrawel was done over the internet. That money as yet has not been traced.
DH and i were cept on police bail for over a year while they completed their investigations. During this time we were powerless to do anything, I attempted to committ suicide due to the stress and we have reached lows you can not imagine.
After a hellish year i was released without charge. DH was charged on 10 counts. 3 of obtaining property by deception, 3 of fraud (can't remember exact terminology) and 1 of forgery (a letter apparently)
We have already paid over £20,000 in legal fees and if we had decided to fight the case would be looking at at leat £100,000 more including solicitors, Queens counsel, computer experts, forensic accountants, private investigators etc. At the moment DH mother in paying for us to survive - although i have now got a job, and DH father in paying legal fees. We cannot live off others forever.
If we fight it we could lose everything. We have 2 children and a need to keep a roof over their heads, they have been through so much in their very young lives that keeping a familiar home is vitsl to their stability.
We could fight it to the bitter end and have the full support of friends and family who believe us and know we have been set up. Our morals say fight but we have learnt over the past year that justice is not fair, about who is guilty or innocent but who can prove what and who can afford to prove what.
We do not want the children to remember daddy being away, we do not want to be apart at all so are trying to limit damage. We know dh is innocent and now have to ignore justice and look to what affect a lengthy trail could have on the family, the stress, tension cost etc has had to be weighed up against what could be gained or lost. We will win in the end because we have eachother.

If you have got this far then well done and thankyou

OP posts:
QueenPeaHead · 03/10/2006 22:35

I don't think she is a troll, but I think he is guilty as hell.
And she is deeply loyal and deeply naive. Poor woman.

curlysmum · 03/10/2006 22:50

I think the fact that the 1st cheque was in 2001 has really shocked me , then 2004 , I find it difficult to believe that someone else would be able to do this with such a gap and know your passwords etc for online banking , they must have changed over that period of time, this surely can't be an opportunist fraud going over 4 years on three seperate occasions.
perhaps do you think he may have gambled it away , this is fairly common .

Sunnysideup · 03/10/2006 23:58

so many people have said so many insightful things on here and are so well informed legally that I'm not even going to go there....

It just occurs to me that if MY dad had been in this position, I would far, far rather that he had stayed in prison longer than that he pleaded guilty to the offence. I would have been proud as punch of himfor standing up for his innocence and I would have heartily believed in his innocence. If he had pleaded guilty, even if I was given the explanation that it was purely so he could be home faster, I would have thought that wrong and it certainly would have made me feel sick that my dad had pleaded guilty; even as a young child I would have had doubts about him had he pleaded guilty.

Does anyone see where I am coming from? Obviously a dad's time with his children is important, but I believe even very young children would rather an innocent man pleaded not guilty...or am I just an oddball here I wonder!

maggiesmama · 04/10/2006 00:07

rather than all this conjecture, and seeing all of these relevant skills and experience, is it totally naive to suggest people who might be able to help volunteer to look at the actual details for PT? maybe its too late. just seems like a potentially amazing resource here, and a good cause?

SueW · 04/10/2006 07:41

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at OP's request.

Pruhoohooohoooooni · 04/10/2006 07:52

As SueW puts it - about the evidence that'll convict him being available but no access being allowed to evidence that might prove his innocence - this is exactly the kind of thing we have MPs for. Puddytats, have you contacted your MP to get him/her to look into this case?

wannaBe1974 · 04/10/2006 09:51

but they haven't been denied access to the evidence, they can obtain proof of who applied for the marriage certificate with a court order but they have chosen not to do so. There is a vast difference between having to work to find the evidence and being told you're not allowed access to any evidence. If pt's dh wanted to gain the copies of bank statements etc he could, any evidence the prosicution has also has to be made available to the defence.

I guess we'll find out on Friday the 13th .. is it not unusual for a trial to begin on a Friday?

zippitippitoes · 04/10/2006 09:54

if he is pleading guilty then it will be sentencing not a trial, so will be wrapped up pretty quickly

wannaBe1974 · 04/10/2006 10:14

ah yeh that's true. although I wouldn't wanna be sentenced on Friday the 13th.

zippitippitoes · 04/10/2006 10:18

I still can't get the pleading guilty

He hasn't done anything wrong, has been through a load of grief and he is prepared to roll up and get handed his sentence without a moment's objection

wannaBe1974 · 04/10/2006 10:25

me either. Plus I can't understand how anyone can just roll over and conceed defeat and never look back without wanting to know what really happened. this is what makes it so unbelieveable.

wannaBe1974 · 04/10/2006 10:25

and I equally can't understand how someone can stand by and watch someone plead guilty for a crime they didn't commit without losing some respect for that person.

zippitippitoes · 04/10/2006 10:26

defeatist was the word I was going to use but i scrubbed it

is it depression and despair causing the guilty plea

if so don't give up now

curlysmum · 04/10/2006 10:27

If he enters his pleas of not guilty on that day, he will then have quite a bit of time to prepare his case and instruct his defence and start to look at all the info.
As it stands I think he will plead guilty and then kept in custody from there and they will probably have to go back into court another day for sentencing.
Its each to their own decision my family would go absolutely mad if I was thinking of pleading guilty for something I did'nt do, but then they are Irish and firm believers in standing up for your yourself and your rights.#
Also when your kids are young as I think Puddytats are they adjust quite easily to situations, that they may not really remember Daddy being away if its just a question of saving some months off the sentence.

wannaBe1974 · 04/10/2006 10:36

but children are a lot more perceptive than we give them credit for. And maybe they won't have that much recollection of daddy being away, although I think it's more likely to be years than months, will they not have recollection of having to move out of their home? having to live off limited resources because all the money was taken to pay back daddy's debt? the media coming round, because the media will have an interest in this case, even if it's only the local tv/radio/newspapers. And will they not be known by other children as the ones whose daddy is in prison? At least if he pleads not guilty they can say he didn't do it, but if he pleads guilty they won't be able to say that, and children that young don't have the ability to understand that daddy pleaded guilty to avoid a trial.

zippitippitoes · 04/10/2006 10:40

it's starting to sound like the railway children

Piffle · 04/10/2006 10:42

It is very socially isolating having a father in prison esp for a white collar crime, no one will believe PT did not know, they will presume some great stash hidden away in some Swiss bank account. Tainted by association.
At least by fighting you keep your pride and dignity in public.

Pruhoohooohoooooni · 04/10/2006 10:47

Does no-one else think getting their MP involved in a massive miscarriage of justice is a good idea?
Puddytats has said in the past that they have been denied access to information that might make a difference, and that she has no faith that justice can be done. Well fgs we live in a democracy where if you really believe that this is true, you have an elected advocate to fight your corner.

Marina · 04/10/2006 10:49

Puddytats, I really think contacting your MP urgently, as others have suggested, is a good idea.

zippitippitoes · 04/10/2006 10:50

I think they should pursue every avenue, but for some reason mystifyingly they don't want to..it's not a miscarriage of justice if he pleads guilty though..he is then saying he did do it so presumably if he goes with that plan then he is guilty

wannaBe1974 · 04/10/2006 10:55

agree with zippy and piffle. it's not a miscarriage of justice if you plead guilty. if you plead not guilty and fight your case and then are sent down you can start to appeal, but by pleading guilty you have nowhere to go, you cannot appeal because you have admitted to the crime.

And pt has said that they can access certain information by obtaining a court order, but for some reason they have chosen not to pursue this avenue.

Pruhoohooohoooooni · 04/10/2006 11:00

(Phew thanks Marina!)

zippitippitoes · 04/10/2006 11:06

I still don't understand this non disclosure business...isn't it a fact that if he was to plead not guilty then found guilty grounds for appeal would be non disclosure to the defense before the trial?

Blu · 04/10/2006 11:19

Puddytats - If you feel so strongly, based on what you have experienced from the police, that justice can not be respected in this country, then I think you should contact your MP. I don't think that any of us would wish to be complacent about any witholding of information, or any barriers in allowing facts in your DH's favour to threaten his reputation and freedom.

Some of the poeple who have expressed practical reservations about the facts as you have presented them have expertise in forensic and fraud law and accountancy. If there is evidence which could have been sought but has been refused, than your DH's solicitor and barrister should be making a big song and dance about that. I know that miscarriages of justice do occur - but also many trials (of guilty and innocent) end in aquittal beause the evidence is not presented properly or there is a 'technicality' on which the prosecution fall down. REfusal to allow you access to evidence that could help you surely counta as a technicality if pointed out?

I have no idea whether your DH is inocent or guilty - but I feel for YOU, and I feel for justice and democracy in this country. So if there is a case to be fought - fight it! He could be found not guilty, he could be aquitted on a technicality, he could be found guilty and serve pretty much the same sentence as if he pleaded not guilty - but at least you could appeal, and he would be able to keep his 'not guilty' stance.

Pruhoohooohoooooni · 04/10/2006 13:55

I said further down that pt had said they were not allowed access to evidence: however having gone back over old threads (because it was niggling me), I was confused by a couple of posts saying that they weren't allowed access to bank records etc until they were formally charged. Subsequent to that I do not know what has happened and I can't see anywhere where pt has laid it out. (No reason why she should, other than it is notable that many, many people have questioned there being no trail of movement of the money, and that hasn't been addressed as far as I can see: surely the key point?????????)