GUILTY Bali - Sheila von Wiese Mack, 62, found dead in suitcase, 12 Aug 2014 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
What is known about Maria Vanessa Favia? Her areas of expertise, where she went to school, her community service affiliations, etc...

She's got all the standard lawyer online links to peruse. Full name Maria Vanessa Unger Favia.

She's a family law attorney who has her own practice and is not affiliated with Michael Elkin's firm. She has taken it upon herself, perhaps at the urging of ME to represent the "interests" of HM's unborn child. Some interesting posts and discussion questioning the ramifications of that with regards to SWM's estate on previous pages. I'm hoping Gitana will drop in soon to perhaps help us out as to what the reason for her representation may be. I believe Gitana also specializes in family law and would be a great resource on Vanessa's role in this.

MOO
 
I wondered if HM and TS used duct tape on SWM to tape her mouth shut so that she could not scream. I find it surprising that no one heard any of the obviously violent struggle that occurred in that room. Perhaps they had the tv up loud as well?

I do find it interesting that the unborn baby has a lawyer of their own. I don't think HM has any maternal feelings towards the baby but will want to keep it with her because she will get special attention this way. The baby would probably receive special care, food and other niceties and HM would certainly want all of that for herself. I am sure she has no qualms about using her baby, just as she used her own mother.

Plus, it is very likely that if HM is denied any of SWM's money and estate, then the baby would be the next heir in line. So HM would definitely want to have the child because that would give her access to the money to spend on housing, a nice vehicle, the finer things in life). And if that baby were to die, guess who would inherit that money? Probably HM. So I think it is very important that this child be taken from HM at birth. I think her parental rights need to be severed so that HM has NO connection to that child. I would fear for that child if it were in HM's care. ( yes, I know HM is likely to be in jail for many years but will likely get out one day).

I also think that TS should have his parental rights severed as well. The baby should not be raised by his mother either. One day TS will likely get out and I'd be willing to bet he sees that baby as a golden ticket to being a "baller" (as he described himself when bragging/lying to try and impress people).

I would prefer to see the baby raised by a loving adoptive couple or by a relative of SWM who has their own money and would not see the baby as a little goose that lays golden eggs.
 
I questioned whether her lawyers brought that clothing with them for her. Wondering why TS is always photographed wearing a prison jumpsuit in handcuffs and HM is in street clothes holding hands with petite LE women. I also cant imagine they've given her suitcase full of clothes back to her.

MOO

I read that M. Vanessa Favia specializes in juvenile delinquency cases, that she volunteers defending various cases involving troubled youths. I'm thinking she pulled Heather's juvie records and volunteered to represent her...or assist her Indonesian lawyer. I think the representation for the baby is just a guise to assist in the defense of Heather. I wouldn't be surprised at all if all if Heather's court records come into play here and this lawyer makes it known that Sheila didn't get Heather the higher level of help that she may have needed.

For the record, I still think the biggest thing this girl suffered from was spoiled brat syndrome. However, it's legally documented that she had some type of disorder and if this happens to end up in those judges hands, then it may help to spare her life. Not sure how it'll go bc I thought evidence of prior history from another country wasn't taken into consideration there. Or do I have that backwards?

Either way, this Maria Vanessa Favia seems to know her stuff when it comes to defending hard to handle teens... I wonder how this will play out. I'm anticipating Gitana's return to weigh in on this lawyer and if she can truly have an impact in Indonesia considering they're way of prosecuting a case is so different from here in the USA.
 
She's pretty too, not that that matters, only something I noticed. Also, there's other lawyers with the same name and similar names including Vanessa Flavia and Maria Favia also Maria Flavia. The lawyer helping with Heather's the baby's defense is Maria Vanessa Favia (married to Nicholas as per the last news article).

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/60181-il-maria-favia-1689909.html
 
This doesn't surprise me at all when I consider Heather is from Chicago. DePaul is where Andrea Lyon lectures and teaches. She was a critical force in the defense of Casey Anthony, as well as many others facing the dp. Criminal defense lawyers that are also anti dp will do whatever it takes to take the dp off the table. Considering an unborn baby is defenseless, and considering Chicago defense attorneys that are also anti dp are abundant, and considering the culture surrounding them that includes like minded persons, it doesn't surprise me. I believe that even if Elvin and associates hadn't stepped up to this defense then somebody else would have, most especially from that area. That's my honest opinion. They're just practicing what they believe in. The exposure and money that could be made afterward is only an added bonus. (FYI I only used Lyon as an example as she's the best anti dp lawyer in our nation)

I know many people in law. Being a prosecutor is heroic for the most part, but many lawyers say that being a criminal defense attorney is more rewarding...not only bc there's more money to be made but bc they're able to actually practice defending the law that they went to school for.

I hear ya, it sounds good being able to practice defending the law (keeping murders off death row, less or no sentence) that they went to school for UNTIL one of their own loved ones are killed.

I am not a fan of lawyers who twist the law with words and showmanship so that murders have a better chance at life than the person(s) they killed. IMO the only good thing is we will not have to endure Mrs Mack being put on trial for her own murder like we would have if this had happened in the US. Jmo

ciao
 
I hear ya, it sounds good being able to practice defending the law (keeping murders off death row, less or no sentence) that they went to school for UNTIL one of their own loved ones are killed.

I am not a fan of lawyers who twist the law with words and showmanship so that murders have a better chance at life than the person(s) they killed. IMO the only good thing is we will not have to endure Mrs Mack being put on trial for her own murder like we would have if this had happened in the US. Jmo

ciao

Me too, I feel the same way. It really left a sour taste in my mouth how the lawyers were with Casey Anthony's defense. I remember something coming out about Baez whom supposedly believing that when the dp is on the table then whomever is the lawyer needs to do whatever it takes to spare the life of the suspected criminal. While I think sometimes that deserves applause, I find it disgusting how warped some lawyers can be knowing they're helping to free a murderer. It's one thing to defend the law, but quite another when defending the law lends to assisting freedom to a heinous perp that would have been found guilty if the laws weren't twisted. Makes me ill.
 
The interrogation took place at Denpasar Police station on Friday at around 1 p.m. It was still ongoing at 6 p.m. local time. Schaefer, who was being held at the Bali Police headquarters, was escorted to the Denpasar Police office in the morning and went straight to the interrogation room of the crime section office.

……..During the interrogation, Schaefer was accompanied by an Indonesian lawyer, Suroso, who was assisted by an interpreter. Two police investigators questioned the suspect.

…….Denpasar Police detective Adj. Comr. I Nengah Sadiarta confirmed that the US lawyer did not accompany the suspect [Schaefer] during the interrogation. “They can only be accompanied by a lawyer who has legally been given power of attorney by the suspect,” Sadiarta said.

 Neither the police nor Suroso made a statement regarding the nature of the interrogation.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/09/13/us-murder-suspect-finally-faces-questioning.html

IMO - TS gave up his right to remain silent and agreed to being 'interrogated'/make a statement. HM on the other hand retains her right to remain silent. Differing legal advice perhaps or did TS decide to talk after he learned that Elkin was not going to support him as well. 5+ hours of interview is a lot to translate and transcribe.
 
Plus, it is very likely that if HM is denied any of SWM's money and estate, then the baby would be the next heir in line. So HM would definitely want to have the child because that would give her access to the money to spend on housing, a nice vehicle, the finer things in life). And if that baby were to die, guess who would inherit that money? Probably HM. So I think it is very important that this child be taken from HM at birth. I think her parental rights need to be severed so that HM has NO connection to that child. I would fear for that child if it were in HM's care. ( yes, I know HM is likely to be in jail for many years but will likely get out one day).

SBM

I hope Gitana does weigh in here... I do not think the unborn baby would ever be considered an heir. Heirs are determined as of the time of death, and an unborn child would not be considered alive for legal purposes. If HM is denied rights to inherit, then the estate would pass to other living relatives, or other heirs named in the will or trust.

Now, if HM has a trust fund of her own then the baby, when it is born, likely would be a beneficiary should HM die. That could be the reason for the attorney to protect the baby's interests.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk
 
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/09/13/us-murder-suspect-finally-faces-questioning.html

IMO - TS gave up his right to remain silent and agreed to being 'interrogated'/make a statement. HM on the other hand retains her right to remain silent. Differing legal advice perhaps or did TS decide to talk after he learned that Elkin was not going to support him as well. 5+ hours of interview is a lot to translate and transcribe.

From what I understood, both of them had refused to talk until their lawyer from the US showed up. The article seems to indicate that ME is helping them both out and has retained two different lawyers for them. TS was interrogated again on Friday, with the assumption he'd answer questions, and HM was scheduled to be interrogated on Saturday with the same assumption now that she's had a chance to meet with her US lawyer. So we've not heard anything so far to indicate her interview took place or that she answered any questions. Or whether ME and VF are still in Bali and are still working with her "team".

We've also heard, however, that the lawyer TS has is working pro bono as is the rights advocate from the UK. So where did these people come from, if not through ME, and why do they only seem to be concerned about the possibility that TS may face the firing squad alone? What input has his mother had so far with the funds she is raising? Did she facilitate these people to be in her son's corner somehow?

And since we've yet to hear that either ME, VF or the Indonesian "team" that is helping HM are working pro bono, who is paying them or are they expecting to be paid through SWM's estate somehow?

ETA: i agree with SouthAussie and I'm not sure what any of these defense attorneys can do anyway. There really isn't much of a need for them and I think it's only for show that they recently decided that all person's on trial should have one. All the "help" that ME thinks he's giving will likely make no difference. The evidence and facts will be presented at the trial and as we've been told before by our Australian posters, a defense attorney is not there to argue away the evidence. So what does ME think he is going to accomplish?

MOO
 
Let's not forget that HM is young and has many childbearing years ahead of her, if she gets off or a lighter sentence. I don't know about the possibility of getting pg in prison there or, for instance, if she is let out in 10 years she will be 29/30. I'm not sure the baby would get sole use of any money anyway-- I would assume it would be put in a trust for any future children, if applicable. Just a thought I had...
 
Has there been other cases in Bali where a foreigner is charged with murdering another foreigner they were travelling with? Just wondering if they will be taking this as seriously as if a foreigner had killed an Indonesian citizen?
 
SBM

I hope Gitana does weigh in here... I do not think the unborn baby would ever be considered an heir. Heirs are determined as of the time of death, and an unborn child would not be considered alive for legal purposes. If HM is denied rights to inherit, then the estate would pass to other living relatives, or other heirs named in the will or trust.

Now, if HM has a trust fund of her own then the baby, when it is born, likely would be a beneficiary should HM die. That could be the reason for the attorney to protect the baby's interests.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

BBM. Thanks for thinking of that. I hadn't considered the fact that the baby not being born yet would affect the baby being able to be an heir. It will be interesting to see how that will all play out.
 
Still no word on whether HM was questioned and what evidence they presented to her?
 
I hope Gitana does weigh in here... I do not think the unborn baby would ever be considered an heir. Heirs are determined as of the time of death, and an unborn child would not be considered alive for legal purposes. If HM is denied rights to inherit, then the estate would pass to other living relatives, or other heirs named in the will or trust. [Cuts]

Is that really correct? That the child must be alive at the time of Sheila's death in order to inherit? I don’t think that is universally true.

1. For example, the law in Delaware appears to allow an unborn child to inherit from his/her parents under certain circumstances:

Delaware, Title 12, Chapter 3, Subchapter I:
§ 301 Shares of after-born children.
A child born after its parent has made a last will and testament and for which such parent made no provision, vested or contingent, specifically or as member of a class, by will or otherwise, shall take the same portion of its parent's estate, both real and personal, that the child would have been entitled to if such parent had died intestate. [Cuts]

§ 310 Posthumous children.
Posthumous children or children in the mother's womb, if born alive, are within the foregoing provisions respecting after-born children. Such children shall take any estate or property, real or personal, by descent, transmission, gift, devise, limitation or otherwise in the same manner as if absolutely born at the decease of its parent. If such child is not born alive, the effect shall be the same, to all intents and purposes, as if no such child had ever existed. [BBM]​

See: http://delcode.delaware.gov/title12/c003/sc01/

The above isn’t relevant to Sheila’s estate, but I mention it to show that unborn children who aren’t even named in a will appear to be able to inherit in some cases.

2. There are various websites offering will and trust advice to people in Sheila’s position just before her death, that is, who aren’t yet grandparents, but may want to include unborn grandchildren in their will. One example, is very much like Sheila’s situation:

Although you may designate someone not yet born as a beneficiary, that person must be subsequently born living in order to receive an inheritance. For example, a mother could leave a gift in her will for any issue of her only daughter. If her daughter had two children and was pregnant when her mother died but suffered a miscarriage, her two daughters would inherit but there would be no gift passed to her unborn child since the pregnancy did not go to full term with a living birth. The fetus had no rights, no estate nor heirs.[BBM]​

See: http://www.answers.com/Q/Does_a_foetus_have_a_right_to_inherit_from_an_estate

Another example specifically urges a person writing a will to consider whether or not she wants to include unborn heirs:
http://www.brettesember.com/press/grandparents today articles leaving an inheritance.htm

3. Interestingly, West's Encyclopedia of American Law, second edition (2008) says that even if the person making a will or trust restricts it to only grandchildren existing at the time of her death, this still would include an unborn grandchild conceived before her death (the relevant part is near the end, BBM):

After-Born Child: A child born after a will has been executed by either parent or after the time in which a class gift made according to a trust arrangement expires.

The existence of an after-born child has significant legal ramifications upon gifts made under wills and trusts. Under the law of wills, the birth of an after-born child after the parent makes a will does not revoke it but has the effect of modifying its provisions. Generally, the after-born child must be given the share of the parent's estate that the child would have been entitled to if the parent had died without leaving a will, according to the law of Descent and Distribution. The beneficiaries of the will must contribute a proportionate share of what they inherited to make up the after-born child's share.

Under the law of trusts, a gift to a class is one in which the creator of the trust, the settlor, directs that the principal of the trust should be distributed to a specifically designated group of persons, such as to grandchildren, who are alive at a certain time, such as at the settlor's death. Any child born after this time would not be entitled to a proportionate share of the trust principal unless conceived before the settlor died. An after-born child born eleven months after the settlor's death, therefore, would not share in the principal, since the class had closed nine months after the settlor's death.​

See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/After-Born+Child

So it seems you do not necessarily have to have been born at the time of a person’s death to inherit. Obviously, we would want to know at least two things: what exactly is the law in the jurisdiction where Sheila’s estate is probated (I’m assuming Illinois), and what conditions Sheila placed in her will and trust(s).

I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal opinion, and this is the internet, so consider all with caution!
 
It seems the idea that a child conceived but not yet born at the time of a testator’s death has long been considered “born” for the purposes of inheritance in many jurisdictions. It dates back to Roman law.

(I’m not entirely sure I’m using “testator” correctly, but I mean a person who makes a will and testament or has established a trust.)

The Romans said: Nasciturus pro iam nato habetur, quotiens de commodis eius agitur, meaning "The unborn is deemed to have been born to the extent that its own benefits are concerned."

See:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasciturus_pro_iam_nato_habetur,_quotiens_de_commodis_eius_agitur

Related to this is the French idea of en ventre sa mère (literally, in his/her mother's belly), a legal concept which holds that a child which is still en ventre sa mère is accepted to be a minor, provided it is subsequently born alive.

See:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_ventre_sa_mere

So perhaps this lawyer for Heather’s unborn child feels she’s really got something to work with!
 
Note: the following article was later revised, removing the room numbers altogether - room numbers that were contrary to what we have been led to believe:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/12/bali-indonesia-suitcase-murder/15516571/

In my search for info about the questioning of HM on Saturday (no luck finding anything :sigh:) I came across this article again ^^^ that Quester had previously linked.

I just noticed in the article that, as well as his Indonesian lawyer, Sue Carpenter (the rep for Reprieve) sat in on Tommy's questioning session.

As we know, Sue Carpenter works to stop capital punishment.

I wonder what that was about, and how she gets to sit in on the session when no-one else but Indonesian authorities and lawyers are allowed?

Maybe she sat in on Heather Mack's questioning session as well.

Maybe the Indonesian authorities let her in to make it clear to TS (and HM?) that they were potentially looking at a firing squad, and to help persuade them to cooperate to avoid that?


Schaefer was interrogated Friday in the presence of his Bali lawyer, Suroso, and Sue Carpenter, representing the British-based anti-capital-punishment group Reprieve U.K., police said.
 
.... That the child must be alive at the time of Sheila's death in order to inherit? I don’t think that is universally true.... So it seems you do not necessarily have to have been born at the time of a person’s death to inherit.
Obviously, we would want toknow at least two things: what exactly is the law in the jurisdiction where Sheila’s estate is probated (I’m assumingIllinois), and what conditions Sheila placed in her will and trust(s).I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal opinion, and this is the internet, so consider all with caution!
BBM SBM

Another factor about distribution of SVWM's prop is how the prop, a/c's, assets are held (titled, registered, or recorded).
Ex: SVWM(only); SVWM & other (HM? Or S's bro?) as Joint Ten w Rt/Surv.; SVWM trustee, for SVWM Trust of [date].

3 Categories of Property
Hypo ex's of property, a/c's or assets she may have titled various ways, maybe had not yet transferred to her trust?

1st: Probate Estate Property
$ *advertiser censored*,000 CD, a/c ..........SVWM & S's brother, Joint Ten w Rt/Surv..........No probate ct involvement;
.....................................................................................................................................................after providing death cert, etc. to bank, bro wd receive $.
.
$ *advertiser censored*,000CD, a/c ................. SVWM only (no jt ten or co-owner)........... Goes thruprobate ct, to be dist'ed per will.
$ XX,000 money mkt............. SNWM only............................................ Ditto
Auto..................................... SVWM only. ........................................... Ditto.
Prsnl prop (jewelry, art, antique furn.).... untitled................................................. Ditto.

W ^these assets^ subject to probate, what would S's brother,executor of her estate, do?
If SVWM bequeathed any/some/all of probate estate to HM,
would hefile motion in IL probate ct to postpone distribution to her, pending disposition of Bali crim case against HM and her (presumed) eventual return to US? And/or possibly after-born child? Or ___?
Conceivably, that could be years.

2nd: Trust property

Condo.......................... SVWM tt'ee, SVWM trust...............................To be dist'ed per trust, to bnfcry she designated in tr doc.*
.
Wrt condo, a trust asset, not subject to probate ct jurisdiction, what would S's brother do?
Presumably as successor tt'ee, S's bro has flexibility about administering trust, per powers clause.
If he anticipates lapse of couple yrs for Bali crim procedure, does trust have sufficient $$$ to pay mortgage, prop taxes, ins, maintenance on condo, if he is to retain it for HM, on her (presumed) eventual return to US? And/or possibly after-born child? ?
If insufficient $ in tr, does he have discretion to sell condo (& other tr assets?), retain $ for HM and/or possibly after-born child?

3rd: $ payable to life ins beneficiary; surv. jt ten.
$ *advertiser censored*,000 life ins policy ...SVWM insured & owner, HM beneficiary......No probate ct involvemt; normally, after providing death cert, ....................................................................................................................................................etc. to ins co., HM wd receive $ from ins co.
$ *advertiser censored*,000 CD, a/c .............SVWM & HM, Joint Ten w Rt/Surv...............No probate ct involvemt; normally, after providing death cert, ....................................................................................................................................................etc. to bank, HM wd receive $ from bank.
.
Crim case against HM (we're presuming to be the named beneficiary of hypo life ins policy) is pending in foreign country.
W notoriety of death, could ins co slip up & pay HM $ (EFT-a US bk ac of hers), if she finangled the right docs to ins co?
What language would Bali-issued death cert be written in? Would it show MoD of homocide, like US, etc?

Wondering about any assets or a/c's that SVWM might have held like this.


Glad I'm not in SVWM's brother's shoes.
Hoping SVWM rcv'ed competent legal counsel about her estate planning and followed thru w approp doc's & measures
RIP.

JM2cts. I am not an atty, don't play one on TV, but have stayed at Holiday Inns. jmo moo imo etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
IIRC, a Chi-town atty quoted in one MSM article early on said (my paraphrasing) - I/my law firm did some estate planning for SVWM.
IIRC, ~1-2 mo prior to her Bali trip, SVWM transferred condo from her name only, to hold in her trust's name.
IOW, she signed a deed to transfer condo to trust; deed was recorded in Cook County Recorder's office in past couple mo.
IIRC, same atty said (my pp'ing) - I/my law firm filed SVWM's will in probate ct, as we were obligated to do, on learning of her death.
 
Crim case against HM (we're presuming to be the named beneficiary of hypo life ins policy) is pending in foreign country.
W notoriety of death, could ins co slip up & pay HM $ (EFT-a US bk ac of hers), if she finangled the right docs to ins co?

Really interesting post, al66pine. You’ve raised a lot of important things to think about.

I would hope that Heather could not bamboozle the insurance companies, if there is life insurance involved. Here’s something from an article about insurance and the Slayer Rule:

… insurers should not pay policy proceeds shortly after a murder where the insurance company is informed that the primary beneficiary is the principal suspect. In particular, such payment should not be made when law enforcement is conducting an ongoing investigation or a prosecution is pending. If a prosecution actually is commenced, “the insurance company should delay payment until the outcome of the prosecution is known.” [footnotes removed]​

The article is: “Life Insurance and The Homicidal Beneficiary: The Insurer’s Responsibilities under State Slayer Laws and Statutes” by Gary Schuman. His bio is not included at the end of the article, so I don’t know who he is. But he certainly writes like a lawyer! Also, I don’t know when the piece was written. I found no dates later than 2002 cited.

The article is very interesting, but makes clear a couple of things: that the specific laws vary across states and that many rulings in Slayer Rule cases have been fact-specific. It’s very long, but here is both the brief introduction and conclusion [BBM and footnotes removed]:

Introduction
The ability to name the beneficiary is one of the most important rights possessed by the owner of a life insurance policy. The person having the right to designate a beneficiary may name anyone he or she chooses and, generally, every person is eligible to be the beneficiary of an individual life insurance policy. There are, however, qualifications to this general rule which must be considered for any particular life insurance policy. One such example is that a person may have been eligible to receive the insurance proceeds when named but later could be declared ineligible if the person named is responsible for the insured’s death.

Conclusion
Judicial determinations and statutory laws regulating the issue of homicidal beneficiaries are diverse and complex. There is no uniform rule throughout the United States governing the rights of homicidal beneficiaries to life insurance benefits. Insurance companies confronting this situation early on must conduct a thorough investigation, cooperate with law enforcement officials and review the applicable state law. In many instances, an interpleader action will relieve the insurer of multiple liability. Each such claim, however, must be decided on a case-by-case basis.​

See: http://www.thefederation.org/documents/schuman.htm
 
Assuming Heather murdered her mother (we have strong evidence reported so far), then the actual situation is:

A live daughter with an unborn child murders her mother.​

But combining the Slayer Rule (which sometimes is rendered as considering the homicidal beneficiary to have predeceased her victim for inheritance purposes) and Nasciturus pro iam nato habetur, quotiens de commodis eius agitur (an unborn child is considered living for inheritance purposes), for legal purposes the situation just might be construed as:

A dead daughter murders her mother, the latter having a live grandchild.​

A strange juxtaposition!
 
Really interesting post, al66pine. You’ve raised a lot of important things to think about....
See: http://www.thefederation.org/documents/schuman.htm.
SBM

OTabby - thanks for linking to & quoting from Slayer Rule article. Quite informative.

Yes, atm, just hypothesizing there may be various assets held different ways.

I s/h/posed my earlier question this way:
W notoriety of death, could ins co slip up & pay HM $ (EFT-a US bk ac of hers),
if she finangled the right docs to ins co, while Bali crim charges are still pending?

My earlier post ASSumed, w/out stating explicitly, in Bali, HM w/be found guilty of SVWM's homicide .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
1,168
Total visitors
1,321

Forum statistics

Threads
602,114
Messages
18,134,893
Members
231,238
Latest member
primelectrics
Back
Top