GUILTY Bali - Sheila von Wiese Mack, 62, found dead in suitcase, 12 Aug 2014 #3

[Hiandmighty]

It's true. If this had been a man biting a woman and doing all the things to her that HM did, there is no question he would have been in jail.

Poor Sheila. She was thinking jail wouldn't help, but jail may have prevented a murder (who is to tell though?)

 

[ajaylee]

I suspect HM's interests are being funding by SVM's family, probably her brother.

Regardless of what HM did to her mother, SVM's brother may feel that this is what his sister would have done: spared no expense trying to save this nasty bit of work from herself.

Besides, there's SVM's only grandchild to consider. Short of a miracle, HM is going to have to make a decision about who will raise her child. She really doesn't have a whole lot of choices.

Completely unrelated, but something else that's been niggling at me: the hotel cameras. JVdS knew there were cameras and tried to pose for them (with two cups of coffee). HM and TS behaved like they were unaware of the cameras - otherwise they'd have known the story about six (or three) bandits would never stand up.

If they were unaware of the cameras, why would TS try to hide something under his shirt?

 

[Hiandmighty]

Interesting point about the cameras and hiding behavior. I don't know.

 

[Quester]

Because if TS came upon anyone in the public areas, he obviously didn't want anyone to see he was carrying what he knew to be an intended weapon. JMO

ETA: Also, this is further evidence of premeditation, if true.

 

[Quester]

Personally, I hope SWM's brother withholds funds from HM. And, I think there just might be a chance he would as in an early report he described HM as "that girl" when referring to all the problems SWM had relayed to him and their sister.

 

[Quester]

O/T: JvDS discovered the surveillance camera while trying to stage a farce. And when he looked up and saw that camera ... he ... knew ... his ... goose ... was ... cooked! It was written all over his disgusting face! JMVHO

 

[SwampMama]

Personally, I hope SWM's brother withholds funds from HM. And, I think there just might be a chance he would as in an early report he described HM as "that girl" when referring to all the problems SWM had relayed to him and their sister.

Yep, he is executor for his sister's will/trust. I don't think he is under any obligation to provide funding to the one who killed Sheila. He may give a bare minimum but I would not even do that. Sorry, if you slaughter the golden goose that lays the golden eggs, you should not expect the gold eggs to keep coming.

I seriously would not give her one penny. Let her deal with consequence of her attitude. it is about time for her to be accountable for her years of abuse, assault, theft and crimes her mother would not charge her with.

As for her baby, she may be able to keep it in jail but why would they let a murderer who killed her mother keep a child? She could just as easily kill her child or abuse it or use it as a pawn to get money/sympathy. If she were a decent person, she would think of her kid and let the kid be adopted by a loving family rather than being raised by a heartless killer. But we all know that she is way less than a decent person.

 

[Orange Tabby]

I suspect HM's interests are being funding by SVM's family, probably her brother.

Regardless of what HM did to her mother, SVM's brother may feel that this is what his sister would have done: spared no expense trying to save this nasty bit of work from herself.

Besides, there's SVM's only grandchild to consider. Short of a miracle, HM is going to have to make a decision about who will raise her child. She really doesn't have a whole lot of choices. [SBM]

In post #890 in the previous thread, I noted this information from Sheila's brother, from a recent article in the Chicago Tribune:

The victim's brother, William Wiese, said Heather Mack has not contacted family members, nor have they attempted to reach her.
​

I don't think Heather is getting any money from the Wiese family. They can't even be bothered to speak to her. I suspect they currently despise her. Perhaps they did even before the murder. I have yet to see any adults close to Sheila who have had anything remotely positive to say about Heather.

I have no idea what they could possibly be feeling about Sheila's grandchild. But they may simply have no interest in a child with not merely one, but two murderers for parents. (Assuming the child really is Tommy's.) It might be too much to take. What a monumentally awful situation for Sheila's family. My heart goes out to them.

See: http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-81464119/

 

[Orange Tabby]

OrangeTabby, Come to think of it, this info comes from media accounts presumably from LE...who seem to be loosey-goosey with facts.

I couldn't agree with you more, FormerOakParker: loosey-goosey is spot on. (I'll have more to say about this soon.)

 

[gracehatter]

I couldn't agree with you more, FormerOakParker: loosey-goosey is spot on. (I'll have more to say about this soon.)

I can't wait!!! You seem pretty savvy about journalism.

I remember reading the statement by Sheila's brother and I got the distinct impression he was pointing out that no one had been in touch with their family on behalf of Heather...I take it Heather has chosen not to reach out to them either in person or via Mr. Elkin so if you stop and think about it, she really has no family support, James Mack's other adult children had no relationship with her and I'm sure none of Sheila's friends would reach out and to be honest you really can't blame any of them.

 

[Kamille]

I believe HM was born in October of 1995 (just going by memory of someone posting her passport). That would put her in the OPRF class of 2014, making 2011 her sophomore year, the year she was arrested.
According to the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-indonesia-suitcase-death-met-20140814-story.html), "court" in 2011, when she missed 36 days of school at OPRF, meant that HM had been arrested and was doing time in juvenile detention for domestic battery:
" In December 2011, the younger Mack was arrested on charges alleging domestic battery, aggravated battery and battery, according to Cook County juvenile records."
Also occurring in 2011 was the windfall settlement from Royal Caribbean.
CBS Chicago News reports (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/08...-received-840k-from-cruise-line-settlement/):
"Three years ago a Cook County judge approved a $1.5 million settlement in a lawsuit von Wiese-Mack’s late husband had filed against Royal Caribbean Cruises, after injuring his foot on a cruise ship."...This would be 2011.
The article continues: "He had been dead for years by the time the lawsuit was settled, so the bulk of the settlement — $840,000 – went to von Wiese-Mack. The Sun-Times reported James Mack’s will indicated he was providing only for his daughter, Heather Mack, who was 10 at the time he signed his will. However, in 2012, a judge allowed von Wiese-Mack to pay herself the $500,000 that went to her late husband’s estate."...
IMO, it seems that in 2012, SWM took a good look at HM's mental instability and violent behavior and invested / and locked-up the money to secure retirement years and HM's ultimate inheritance. HM, who seems to feel ultimately entitled to the money, seethes and spirals further out of control. JMO.

It probably was more to do with the juvenile charges. I just wondered if she had to travel to Florida to testify in this case. I can't remember if they all had to. I thought that might have taken her out of school more.

I also wanted to point out that JM did not have any large funds in his "estate" at the time of the will. He wanted whatever he had to go towards the care of only his minor daughter, not his adult children. SWM was his wife and the mother of the minor child. She got a settlement herself for her loss of companionship but I believe all of hers and then some would have gone towards the mortgage that was taken out on the house. I'm sure she could have argued at that time that basically she only had the house to raise HM in and no funds to do it with since she had to use her settlement to pay down the mortgage. So she was rewarded the funds from JM's "estate" to take care of their minor daughter and her estate's net worth at the time she was given the $500,000 from that would have been whatever was left after she took care of the remainder of the mortgage and the value of the house. To my knowledge she did not work. That's not a lot of money to carry you through to retirement and beyond when you are under 60 years old and you are also funding a teenager who didn't appear to want to work either. Not to mention the 20 thousand dollars a year in property taxes alone she was paying on that house as well as all her other expenses.

She didn't make a big profit by selling the house and moving to the condo either. She sold the house for $650,000 (no real estate fees) and paid $535,000 for the condo. But it was enough to free up another $115,000 for her to invest and live off of. She would have had utilities and condo fees to pay there as well although I would hope it was less than what she was paying in utilities and property tax on the house. So eventually, HM would have inherited all of her parent's assets. She just didn't want to wait apparently. And she didn't like being controlled with regards to access to money either as noted on her instagram.

Thing is...it's the same for most kids. If you want your parent's to fund you, whether it be clothes, make-up, money to go out, post secondary education etc., you have to play by their rules and have a good, respectful relationship with them. Your alternative is to go out and get a job, pay your own way and move out. HM just couldn't grasp that. They just didn't have a normal parent/child relationship IMO. SWM probably treated HM more like a friend and a companion in her own grief from losing her husband and HM took advantage of that and became more like an abusive partner. Who expected equal access to everything. Whenever SWM tried to play the parent role, that's when things would go bad for her because HM wasn't going to be having none of that "being told what to do" crap.

MOO

 

[SwampMama]

I can't wait!!! You seem pretty savvy about journalism.

I remember reading the statement by Sheila's brother and I got the distinct impression he was pointing out that no one had been in touch with their family on behalf of Heather...I take it Heather has chosen not to reach out to them either in person or via Mr. Elkin so if you stop and think about it, she really has no family support, James Mack's other adult children had no relationship with her and I'm sure none of Sheila's friends would reach out and to be honest you really can't blame any of them.

I doubt HM has talked to any of the relatives in years or even knows their tele#. There is no emotional connection there. She has never had any use for any of them and she only kept in contact with her mom to abuse her and steal from her. Anyone close to SVM knew what a monster HM was. They saw the bruises and broken bones, she surely confided in many of them thru the years with HM.

I doubt there is anyone on this earth who has any real fondness for HM and she has no one to blame for it but herself. I hope the entire family cuts her off completely and completely rejects anything to do with her. The only question is the baby. Would any of her relatives take the baby in? Will HM want to keep the child to try and make an effort to claim an inheritance from her mother for the child?

She is just that evil and for that reason she should NOT be allowed to raise that child in prison (Bali will pregnant moms keep the kids for 2 years). But in this case HM is so clearly unfit to be a mother. It is not about her right to raise that child. It is about that child's right to have a chance at a normal life and to not be raised by an abusive killer whio has no feelings for anyone. Won't Bali consider HM's fitness to be a parent before allowing to raise the child? Won't HM need financial support to raise her child in prison?

She has NO supporters and I wonder why the American lawyer is even bothering to get involved. He won't be reimbursed for his expenses, she has no money so is he doing it for publicity? Will he try to file suit in America on behalf of the child in an attempt to get the trust fund? I am truly wary of his motives. he is not just a good guy who wants to help. There is nothing he can do in Bali, he has no authority there. But here in America he can file suit and try to get his hands on that money. i do not trust him!

 

[Orange Tabby]

The Ever-Changing Police Accounts

I have more or less trusted the police claims about this crime from the beginning. There seemed to be no reason not to. We saw a video still of Heather and Tommy with the taxi driver, the blood on the taxi back bumper, the bloody suitcase, the two suspects without an ounce of remorse or fear at the police station, and the report of their absurd claim of an armed gang, which to this day has not been repudiated by them or anyone associated with them.

Yet there has always been something a little bit strange about how the police have handled the case. Why was the silver suitcase put in the sunny police courtyard to regale the media? It’s evidence! Why did we see the cops displaying evidence for the cameras as if they were on QVC? It also seemed odd to me that the police would permit video and still cameramen to be in such close proximity of the suspects. Perhaps there are loose standards of police procedure in Indonesia.

The police accounts of what they claim to know keeps changing. I can understand that as an investigation proceeds new information will mean that theories change. But the police have reported certain things as fact and then later reported something completely different as fact. This has happened a lot. Here’s a list I’ve compiled of changing stories from the police. I’ve just re-read a few early accounts of the case, but much of what I’ve listed comes from memory, so if I’ve got anything wrong, I welcome corrections from my fellow WebSleuths. I would also be interested if anyone can recall other examples of where the police have completely changed their story.

First: The murder happened in room 616.
Later: The murder happened in room 317.

First: The murder was committed with two glass weapons, possibly an ashtray and a vase.
Later: The murder was committed with a single weapon, an iron grip from a glass bowl.

First: Tommy and Heather were arguing in the lobby.
Later: Tommy and Sheila were arguing in the lobby.
Still later: Tommy, Heather, and Sheila were arguing in the lobby.

First: Sheila and Heather had been staying at the St. Regis several days before Tommy arrived.
Later: Sheila and Heather had been staying at the St. Regis two days before Tommy arrived.

First: Tommy carried the suitcase containing Sheila’s body up the stairs from the third floor to the seventh floor and then back down to the sixth floor.
Later: The suitcase with the body was on the third floor, never on the sixth floor, and was facilitated to travel downwards by Heather.

First: Tommy called a bellboy to bring a luggage trolley to room 616 and from there the suitcase with Sheila’s body was placed on the trolley.
Later: The suitcase with Sheila’s body was taken from room 317 on a hotel trolley fetched by Heather.

First: Sheila’s body was wrapped in a bed sheet.
Later: The suitcase containing Sheila’s body was wrapped in a bed sheet.

First: The suspects might face trial in the United States.
Later: The suspects will be tried in Bali and there is no possibility of the trial moving to the United States.

First: Placing the body in the suitcase showed premeditation (presumably because they planned all along to dispose of it this way).
Later: Placing the body in the suitcase was a “desperately wild attempt” to get rid of the body (presumably because they had not planned all along to dispose of it this way, going against an argument of premeditation).

First: The time of death was very roughly 12 hours before the body was found, so the murder transpired approximately between 12:30 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. (notwithstanding the fact that there was video of Sheila, alive, in the hotel lobby at 3:45 a.m.).
Later: The time of death was between 6:45 a.m. and 10 a.m.
Still later: The time of death was between 8:40 a.m. and 9:42 a.m.

First: More than one of Sheila’s fingers was broken during the murderous assault.
Later: No fingers were broken, but instead a single fingernail was broken.

First: No one in or around the St. Regis noticed anything wrong with the silver suitcase until the taxi driver observed blood coming from it as it rested in the trunk of his cab.
Later: A staff member of the St. Regis noticed something wrong before the luggage trolley even got outside the hotel: he/she asked why the suitcase was wrapped in a sheet and Heather gives a plausible answer.

First: Tommy confessed that he murdered Sheila.
Later: Tommy did not confess that he murdered Sheila.

First: Heather has undergone psychological examination.
Later: Heather has refused to participate in a psychological exam.

First: The murder was premeditated.
Later: The police do not yet have evidence that the murder was planned.

To the best of my recollection, all these claims have been made by police. Together, it seems like quite a collection of errors and contradictions.

Of course some these discrepancies can be put down to understandable errors made in the early course of the investigation (e.g. how long Heather and Sheila had actually been at the St. Regis). But there are so many mistakes that it troubles me.

I’ve posted before about the possibility of language barriers as a source of some confusion. We could have native English speakers writing stories about accounts given in Indonesian and the reporters may not have sufficiently good Indonesian skills to get it right. We could have Bali authorities who are native Indonesian speakers talking to the press in English and making some language mistakes.

But this cannot possibly explain how it could be reported that Tommy confessed when the police now admit that the statement they made that he confessed is not true. Ditto for Tommy calling a bellboy to the sixth floor to collect Sheila’s body when her body was never on the sixth floor. These are not errors stemming from problems of language proficiency, unless the speaker is utterly atrocious in English, in which case it is outrageously unforgivable to have attempted a report in English in the first place.

If police are playing some kind of cat and mouse game with the suspects by releasing false information (for example, reporting two murder weapons to suggest two participants in the actual brutal attack in the hope that one or both of them would start talking to implicate the other and save him/herself; or claiming that Heather said Tommy did it alone in the hope that Tommy would turn on Heather), then we can trust nothing the police say until they are under oath. If this explanation is true, then law enforcement officials are only concerned with getting the suspects to talk and feel no responsibility to be truthful to the press or public.

I would hate to think the explanation of all, or even some of this is that the police are incompetent. But I can’t rule that out. The initial time of death error can’t be explained either by language problems or a snare to trap the suspects, and the same goes for the dramatic report of Tommy’s furtive up-and-down staircase journey with the silver suitcase.

Have no doubt about it: I believe the police have evidence which will rightfully convict Tommy and Heather. But when it comes to specific details they release, from this point on I will take anything the police say as nothing more than tentative. I simply cannot trust their statements any longer. I will trust the trial.

 

[Orange Tabby]

In my previous post listing shifting and often contradictory statements of the police, I wrote:

First: The murder was premeditated.
Later: The police do not yet have evidence that the murder was planned.

On the face of it, this is not necessarily contradictory. A person can choose to commit a murder (premediate) in a very short period of time – in the blink of an eye. The law recognizes this. Such a premeditated murder would not include any sort of advance planning.

But a murder involving two people where both engaged in premeditation but no planning would suggest to me that each had to have made the decision to commit murder independently, because to consult with each other and agree would be a kind of a plan. While not impossible, that seems rather unlikely. Although I suppose one could argue that an unplanned confrontation took place, Heather yells to Tommy (having had time to think about what she would say), “kill her!” and Tommy thinks and decides to do just that. Both have premeditated, but without a plan.

Of course this scenario omits the fact that police claim that Tommy broke the grip off of a bowl in his room, concealed it under his shirt and then transported it to Sheila’s room where it was then used as the murder weapon. This alone, if true, is evidence of planning on Tommy’s part. The police have also claimed that placing the body in the silver suitcase amounts to premeditation. How that can be the case without planning, is beyond me.

In other words, the cops already have evidence of planning.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I also wanted to point out that JM did not have any large funds in his "estate" at the time of the will. He wanted whatever he had to go towards the care of only his minor daughter, not his adult children. SWM was his wife and the mother of the minor child. She got a settlement herself for her loss of companionship but I believe all of hers and then some would have gone towards the mortgage that was taken out on the house. I'm sure she could have argued at that time that basically she only had the house to raise HM in and no funds to do it with since she had to use her settlement to pay down the mortgage. So she was rewarded the funds from JM's "estate" to take care of their minor daughter and her estate's net worth at the time she was given the $500,000 from that would have been whatever was left after she took care of the remainder of the mortgage and the value of the house. To my knowledge she did not work. That's not a lot of money to carry you through to retirement and beyond when you are under 60 years old and you are also funding a teenager who didn't appear to want to work either. Not to mention the 20 thousand dollars a year in property taxes alone she was paying on that house as well as all her other expens

MOO

SBM

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I want to point out that there is quite likely a trust involved, which would not be public. Given their lifestyle, I believe there's a lot more money involved than just the settlement and house.


ETA. Another thought... I recall reading that she grew up in Grosse Pointe, MI which is a very wealthy area. She also attended an exclusive, and expensive, college. There may be family money and trust funds on her side of the family as well.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

 

[SwampMama]

Here is a thought as to the "preplanned" theory. TS went to Sheila's room about 3:30 (if i remember right). At that time HM was already in the room with her mother. I think the keycard/door computer would record whether door was simply opened from the inside or opened with a keycard. Either way is not good - either HM let him in or TS somehow had a keycard. HM was already presumably mad at her mother so why was she staying in the room with her mom? Why not go stay with TS? She is used to leaving her mother for weeks at a time - not caring what her mother thinks. Why would she stay in the room with someone she obviously hated?

If HM and TS wanted to meet - why do it in Sheila's room? They could meet outside or in his room - they had no business being in that room together at that time of the night, presumably when SVM was asleep. Plus TS is seen hiding the iron fruit bowl handle beneath his shirt? There is no good reason for THAT - none.

I wonder if HM and TS had functioning cell phones in Bali and could communicate thru text messages? Sure it would be expensive but that bill probably wouldn't have to be paid until the following month (unless on a prepaid plan). I would hope the Bali police and our FBI would coordinate on getting those phone records, if there are any.

Hard to believe anything so stupid as what these 2 did would be "preplanned" but nevertheless I am leaning towards a preplanned attack. Even it the attack was planned in the few hours between the argument and the attack, that is still premeditated. I have no doubt that HM would have helped to whip TS into a proper frenzy by telling him things to motivate him. Even if she did, it is still premeditated for both of them - he did not have to go to that room, he did not have to ever speak to SVM again and he certainly didn't have to brutally kill a woman he barely knew.

Oh i know I keep going over the same things that we have already discussed but HM and TS just really get to me.

 

[SouthAussie]

So, I have been thinking about reasons why HM and TS suddenly decided that ‘Sheila insulting Tommy’ was a good ruse to start using as a reason/defense for her murder.

Indonesians do not like insults. There are cases about insults in Indonesia … though most of them seem to look for the remedy of compensation and restoring a person’s good honour.

But how about provocation being a partial defense to murder? Could this be the route that they are going to take? (Seeing that the gang of men thing is not going to work )

(From an Aussie article - not Indonesian)

Provocation is a partial defence to murder, which – if accepted by the jury – results in a conviction for manslaughter instead of murder. And that means a lesser sentence.
It has been traced back to 16th and 17th century England, when brawls and fights arising from 'breaches of honour’ were common, and the sentence for murder was death.

Supporters of the defence in modern times say that it acknowledges that even reasonable, ordinary people can in some cases be pushed to the brink and momentarily lose control and kill someone.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/tvepisode/provoked

I have been looking for items about provocation being used as a defense in Indonesia. Not having a lot of luck, except this one attack where the ‘provoked’ murderous people got off with light sentences …..

The prosecutors also sought reduced sentences, contending that the Ahmadiyah provoked the attack.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/28/indonesia-verdicts-setback-religious-freedom

And articles about women needing to watch what they wear so they don’t ‘provoke’ rapes and attacks

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E4D8163EF937A1575AC0A9679D8B63

 

[newone]

One issue that is unknown to me is whether SWM even knew HM was pregnant. I can imagine the delight she must have felt realizing that ne'er do well daughter was expecting a baby possibly fathered by ne'er do well TS -- an argument would have been expected. As noted by so many posters upthread, this confrontation ahem announcement was probably planned by HM and TS in advance of their arrival -- SWM wasn't in the mood to negotiate any financial support for the fetus or HM and/or TS period - she must have been devastated. I hope there will be evidence presented whether or not poor SWM even knew of the pregnancy.

 

[SouthAussie]

Well, the trial will be in Indonesian. The accused will have an interpreter sitting with them probably (has been that way in trials of Aussies there, anyway). And we have never heard the full details of a trial there ... no transcripts ... just whatever MSM releases, and that is probably subject to someone's interpretation of what is said at the trial. Plus the judges are hard to keep up with as they speak so fast.

So, not sure what details will be revealed to us interested parties. That is why I am trying to absorb every piece of info that we get now, even though it is confusing and subject to interpretation and language/culture differences.

 

[SwampMama]

One issue that is unknown to me is whether SWM even knew HM was pregnant. I can imagine the delight she must have felt realizing that ne'er do well daughter was expecting a baby possibly fathered by ne'er do well TS -- an argument would have been expected. As noted by so many posters upthread, this confrontation ahem announcement was probably planned by HM and TS in advance of their arrival -- SWM wasn't in the mood to negotiate any financial support for the fetus or HM and/or TS period - she must have been devastated. I hope there will be evidence presented whether or not poor SWM even knew of the pregnancy.

The pregnancy is a definitely a point of interest. Did Sheila ever know? Was it what started a disagreement that led to the brutal attack? Prior police reports from the US document SVM calling the cops to report that verbal arguments with HM turned violent on different occasions she was bitten, punch in her broken ankle, pushed down so hard that her arm broke, etc. I wonder if SVM had any bite marks? What the heck kind of psycho bites people like a savage animal??? How long until she bites another prisoner or a prison employee? Sounds like HM needs a muzzle.