Printable View
Proving r he Intent to Committ a Fraud would have been very difficult without the evidence of Gail. She would be a competent but not compellable witness so if she refused to give evidence against Joe then the police would have a very hard time proving their case
Thanks for your answers guys. I didn't realise that the intention to commit fraud was a criminal act, although from what you all say Joe may have gotten away without going to prison without Gail's co-operation. I understand now that she was right to worry about him getting into trouble even without an insurance claim.
Things such as Joe taking out the policy, making arrangements to travel to Ireland and packing clothing to take away with him along with leaving notes about a suicide would all help to build a case that his intent was to defraud
I don't think Joe left a suicide note, though. It was supposed to be an accidental death, I'm sure.
No he didn't leave a suicide note. It was supposed to have been an accidental death and the idea was to be that his body wouldn't be found.
It was accidental, he wanted to disappear for a while, wait for Gail to get the insurance money and re-appear at some time. The mast knocked him into the water and he was unable to get back onto the boat.
I think you've misunderstood what the discussion is about, Perdy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Perdita
Would not surprise me, parkerman, have had one hell of a week behind me but finished my project at work, so can concentrate a bit more again. Just ignore what I said :D
I didnt say he left a suicide note. I was just giving examples of what elelments may go towards proving his intent to defraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dazzle
Each of them singly may be insufficient but taken together would provide sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution.
Margie Clark, hope she is not staying for long :(