Good Guinness Missing

[galwaybay]

[QUOTE=cloudyandcallie;3959928]
Those guys killed horses (and at least one human) for over 20 years before they got caught, and they only got caught after they killed Brach. We’ll never know how many horses were killed for the insurance money. And that doesn’t include all the barn fires that happened.

We have serial murderers of people in the USA who have never been caught and travel around virtually unknown to law enforcement. Killing horses has been much easier and will continue.

BTW bayboys, our (armed robbery) killers in Atlanta always used the victims’ cell phones to call their girlfriends (plural) and mothers, so they were pretty easy to track down.[/QUOTE]

Actually it was the other way around, Brach “disappeared” in 1977 it wasn’t; those involved w/ the insurance fraud/horse murders went on trial in the 1990’s… Richard Baily was convicted insurance fraud & Helen Brachs’ murder in 1995.

[Midge]

Barney Ward has done two things very suiccessfully for the last 40 or so years. He has made a living buying and selling horses and he has made his kid into one of the best riders in the country.

You don’t make a living buying and selling horses by ignoring the profit motive. I think everything Barney has ever done has been for money. The whole insurance fraud was based on money, not some thrill of getting away with something. Everyone has a point where they would do pretty much anything for money. Barney’s bar was just set a whole lot lower than most people’s.

If there is no money to be made, he isn’t going to bother, especially if it was easier to go the other way.

[DMK]

Sheesh, Midge, would you just stop with the logic already? :lol:

[vxf111]

Profit motive doesn’t equal intelligence or aversion to risk.

There WAS a profit motive here-- sell/lease much MORE valuable horse than what you paid/trader for. And it scheme worked for 6 months, if the imposter GG had sold-- it might have gone entirely undetected. This plan was a shade or two away from WORKING?!

[Midge]

I know! You’d think I could walk away from this thread but I just can’t get past the fact there was NOTHING to gain by trading the horses in order to lease out the better one-NOTHING.

It’s like the old math problems.

Low Junior lease fee is lesser, greater, or equal to, purchase price of children’s jumper.

ETA-and it wasn’t a shade or two away from working. It was years away from working as the wrong horse continued to walk around the horse show as Good Guinness and GG continued to show. Some one DID put that together. They knew the horse showing as Kanye was GG.

[vxf111]

Duplicate post, I am having internet issues

[Moesha]

Bollywood Movie Poster…

Bollywood is on it!!!..here is the movie poster for our coth production on this saga…

http://i.indiafm.com/posters/movies/08/merebaappehleaap/still2.jpg

[vxf111]

But GG isn’t a low junior horse (that might be what he happened to be doing while leased but that wasn’t his value because he has more scope/experience/capability)! That’s the difference. Do you think the price of a confirmed Grand Prix horse (average or above-average) is equal to the value of a child/adult jumper?

It’s trading a 5 figure horse for a 6 figure horse!

1/3 of $250,000 (low estimate for a jumps by braille GP horse) for a year is $83,000 AND at the end of the year you get the horse back to re-lease and/or sell (and for all we know, the lessee had an agreement to potentially buy the horse at the end of the lease)

Child/adult jumper is $50,000 (high estimate) and you don’t get it back after you sell

Even assuming the lease was based on the value of a junior jumper. That’s GOT to be valued more than a child/adult jumper and even if the lease fee is equal to the sale price-- with a lease you still OWN the asset at the end. It’s not comparable or equal.

Even assuming an incremental difference in value… At the end of a year, which scenario has you better off financially…

A. You sell a horse for $25,000

B. You lease a horse worth $35,000 for one year for $11,000 and then he comes back

Scenario A, you have $25,000. Scenario B you have $11,000 plus an asset, perhaps a bit depreciated, but worth in the neighborhood of $35,000

[Moderator_1]

While it’s interesting to speculate on theories about how the mix-up occurred, as we’ve noted before, there are no charges of foul play involved, so accusations shouldn’t be made here.

If there are further developments in the case, we can reopen the thread, but barring that, please see the news coverage in the Chronicle.

Thanks and congrats to the COTHers for solving the mystery!

Mod 1