Talk:Henry Keogh

netk.net.au provides most extensive documentation on keogh case
The organisation headed by Dr Robert Moles, author of two books on the Henry Keogh trials keeps the most extensive information, including legal papers at www.netk.net.au. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.131.176.188 (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Protected
The page has been protected; please discuss issues on this talk page instead of revert warring. Once consensus has been reached about what to do, the page can be unprotected. Kusma (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Insurance policys
The insurance policys should be mentioned. As why would Henry Keogh forge his victims signature on over a dozen? life insurance policys worth 1.2 Million if he was not planning to kill her! If the insurance policys where done by her (Which is proven wrong anyway). You would take out less and bigger insurance policys to save on costs.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that insurance policies should be mentioned. There were five. The total was four hundred thousand dollars. There was no dispute that he had signed the policies. He admitted that and stated that he had done so with her knowledge. Later loan applications filled in by his wife listed the exact amount of the premiums as life insurance expenses. Later conversations with her brother included a statement that her insurance was four hundred thousand. Therefore there is sufficient proof to conclude that the policies, although signed by him, were taken out with her knowledge and consent. I have not been able to locate a currently verifiable source of the loan documents but hope someone else might be able to do this. TinkersDam (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He claimed they where closer to 400,000$, prosecution said 1,200,000$ Im pretty sure these things have and exact figure not one open to a guess between 400,000 and 1,200,000.

There is no evidence they where signed by him (a criminal offence) with her permission. Not that it makes any difference.--Theapemonkey (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Manock has since stated that the bruise could have occurred up to a number of days prior to Cheney's death"
This is the silly point that got him off! Manock admitted to the tiny possibility it could have happened another way, which is always possible. If this was a applied to every other case, then you could never find anyone guilty.--Theapemonkey (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)