Duped Husband Also Guilty?

	posted by Adam on 01:37 PM March 30th, 2004
	Dittohd writes "In this case, a woman duped her husband and others into thinking their daughter had cancer to keep the husband from leaving them. They both accepted donations to cover nonexistant cancer treatments, the father trusting the wife and having her handle all the medical visits and bills. The woman got 6 1/2 years in prison. The husband - 4 years 11 months. Are men ever "victims"?"

<  God Made Her Do It, Not The Devil | Paternity Testing Now!  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Missing details (Score:1) by VinceJS on 04:09 PM March 30th, 2004 EST (#1) (User #1290 Info) The story doesn't say whether the husband pled guilty or went to trial, and what the husband was convicted or pled guilty of. You have to prove criminal intent for fraud though. If he was truly unaware of what was going on, and failed to raise his lack of knowledge as a defense, then the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of his lawyer. If he's really guilty, he deserves his punishment. Charity fraud is the worst kind of fraud there is.

Justice Puts Women on a Pedestal (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 04:50 PM March 30th, 2004 EST (#2) This article shows the amount of money that each raised Kamsas City Star "Teresa Milbrandt was ordered to pay about $25,000 in restitution to individuals and businesses. Robert Milbrandt was ordered to repay about $1,000 to his former co-workers and share restitution with his wife for $8,000 to Faith Fellowship Church." Why do I suspect this man just a naive dupe of his wife? Either this judge thinks this man is just outright lying, or he thinks he should be punished for not being in better control of his wife, or both. Are their other possibilities in this case? (click) Justice Puts Women on a Pedestal (Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)

Charles Dickens said it well (Score:1) by MAUS on 07:18 PM March 30th, 2004 EST (#3) (User #1582 Info) When the wrongdoing of Mr Bumble's wife was found out in Charles Dicken's "Oliver Twist" and Bumble was told that the law held husbands accountable for their wive's actions Bumble said " If THAT is the law's oppionion then THE LAW IS AN ASS!! If THAT is the view of the law...THEN THE LAW IS A BACHELOR!!!"

Not to mention (Score:1) by Hunchback on 10:52 PM March 30th, 2004 EST (#4) (User #1505 Info) They had to charge the husband with a crime. Other than that he might have gotten custody of his daughter.

Re:Not to mention (Score:1) by DeepThought on 06:38 AM March 31st, 2004 EST (#5) (User #1487 Info) And you know that when they both get out of jail, the wife will be given custody because "the man is a criminal! He's a BAD, BAD man!"

Maybe not in this case (Score:2) by Dittohd on 02:00 AM April 1st, 2004 EST (#6) (User #1075 Info) The husband may get out of jail first. He got the shorter sentence, but then you never really know for sure how long each will actually be in with parole possibilities. She may still get out first. Dittohd

Re:Maybe not in this case (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 07:45 PM April 2nd, 2004 EST (#7) Why dosen't he just run? I don't understand why people don't atleast try to escape.

Re:Maybe not in this case (Score:1) by DeepThought on 10:14 AM April 3rd, 2004 EST (#8) (User #1487 Info) Because he had faith in the justice system exonerating a relatively innocent (or at least unknowing) person. Foolish, foolish man.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]