Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

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.

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:
Philomena · 01/10/2006 13:05

Soapbox

I must admit that I have had similar thoughts about this not stacking up. I've not wanted to say anything in case it is true and doubts about the tale would hurt. However, so much of this does not really ring true. Suspect Puddytats is either terribly taken in by her DH or is taking everyone else in.

soaringflyingCOD · 01/10/2006 13:07

you all s o arent he only ones

Pruni · 01/10/2006 18:23

Message withdrawn

Freckle · 01/10/2006 18:29

Well, I have to say, from my perspective, that a lot of this does not add up. Saying that legal aid doesn't pay for this that and the other is a load ot twaddle. The whole point of legal aid is to enable those who do not have the funds to have an equal means of defending themselves as those that do.

So, Puddytats, if your dh has told you that, because he is in receipt of legal aid, he is not entitled to x, y and z, he is lying.

motherinferior · 01/10/2006 18:35

Lawyers and Soapbox, in JF's case.

rickman · 01/10/2006 18:36

Message withdrawn

soaringflyingCOD · 01/10/2006 18:37

i knwo little abotu ti but once we had an apepal FOR legal aid to be granted where it had been denied and for complax cases( as the appeal was wiht about6 witnesses needeing cross examination by the 19 year old defendant) it was granted.

Tinker · 01/10/2006 19:00

If it is all fiction, it'd be easy to check - lots of clues re where op based, date of hearing given etc.

soaringflyingCOD · 01/10/2006 19:02

..........two cats seens linkign up the entrance stairs

soaringflyingCOD · 01/10/2006 19:03

i mean cats in court
no
never seen that

Tinker · 01/10/2006 19:04

Whaaaaaaat?????????

soapbox · 01/10/2006 19:04

Well we shall just have to keep our eye out on the court listings for Chichester Crown Court

Tinker · 01/10/2006 19:06

Exactly. You will even know what name to look for

soaringflyingCOD · 01/10/2006 19:16

hey my sister is in chi

curlysmum · 01/10/2006 19:32

God no flies on any of us hey! proper Miss Marples , we'll all be riding up and down past Chichester on our bicycles.

soapbox · 01/10/2006 19:44

Oooh! Really Tinker - I must have missed that one

curlysmum · 01/10/2006 19:58

I do actually believe Puddytats I don't think anyone would go to this must trouble and detail to post something so strange and she seems to have been on here for along time.
I must admit though its her husband I am thinking is not telling the truth as that expert lady I called said you would get funding for this and for someone to get a certified marriage certificate for this etc, and know your maiden name ?
I would have thought that it would have to be someone you know very well and for £40k although its alot of money its not a huge life changing amount, it just does not make sense, you are right though when I remortmaged a few years ago I had 8k paid in my account and when I went to the shops in fact every shop for a few days and paid by debit card the bank kept getting them to do extra security questions to verify my identity , but then I usually only have about 5p in there normally...

Hideehi · 01/10/2006 22:23

My uncle served three years for a crime he didn't commit because his stupid wife and my mother went and interfered with the main witness. Innocent people do go to jail even in this day and age.

Judy1234 · 01/10/2006 22:28

Of course they do and it's hard to get all the experts you might want on legal aid. It might well all be true and plenty of people plead guilty to get lighter sentences - lots of drugs cases abroad where the person didn't actually do it but it's death penalty or guilty plea so faced with that most people give in. Even in the US I think many guilty pleas of the innocent because of their kind of plea bargain system. I just thought some of the things raised could be investigated a bit better without it taking too much money and that putting in a not guilty plea might be worth doing from what I read below.

soapbox · 01/10/2006 22:50

In fraud cases it is overwhelmingly the other way. Joe public does not have a real grip on the what can be a pretty complex series of transactions, although Puddytats case seems to be very simple - albeit highly inconsistent.

Because the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is set pretty high, if the jury members don't understand the case they tend not to convict.

puddytats · 02/10/2006 09:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ggglimpopo · 02/10/2006 09:08

Message withdrawn

zippitippitoes · 02/10/2006 09:08

presumably the case will be better presented by the defence than by you on mn though, I think you should get dh to plead not guilty if he is not guilty..without a shadow of a doubt

puddytats · 02/10/2006 09:15

And for what its worth, we have taken up advice given on here, we have listoned and we do appreciate it.
The case is not simple. It is as simple as that.
I have learnt not everything in this world is black and white, there is a lot of grey.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread