GUILTY Bali - Sheila von Wiese Mack, 62, found dead in suitcase, 12 Aug 2014 #4

[Kamille]

I'd like to point out something here that I believe we have discussed earlier. Indonesia does not really have "defense attorneys". All attorneys in Indonesia cover all cases. And those attorneys do not really make much difference in a criminal trial that is based strictly on facts and is not a jury trial. So therefore, you cannot get better representation to "win" your case for any amount of money. The facts are the facts. The money HM is requesting is strictly for a bribe to someone. And apparently this new lawyer she has just acquired has the connections to make this happen for her if she can "show him the money". I am thoroughly disgusted.

MOO

 

[nightwatch]

In the court filing, Heather Mack's attorney said Wiese, the executor of his slain sister's estate, has denied the defendant's requests to release funds, stating it could allow "for bribery, which is against anti-corruption laws."

Mack originally had sought $300,000 for her mother's estate, the filing states. She later revised it to half the amount, but her uncle did not respond. William Wiese, an out-of-state attorney, declined comment Thursday.

The parties are expected in Cook County court Friday.

Originally wanted 300 grand. Now is claiming to only want what the Indonesian lawyer wants. Seriously??? What lawyer in Indonesia is going to get 150 grand US for a murder case? This is for a bribe. No wonder she changed lawyers, she had to find a corrupt one over there to match the corrupt one she has in the US pecking at Sheila's money like vultures.

MOO

ETA: Interesting to find out that Sheila's brother is an attorney. Glad to hear it as he will be able to deal with this absolute affront to his sister's memory with a legal mind. I can imagine what he's thinking though.

This is the best news I've heard since the beginning of hearing of Mrs Mack's murder. Her brother is a lawyer. I wonder if the slayer rule will be used it is civil and seems like wrongful death where if anyway at all one is responsible for a parents death, no inheritance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayer_rule

ciao

 

[ajaylee]

Yeah, I finally found where to look and only the filings as of yesterday are there. So we'll likely see the filing online tomorrow but won't be able to see much other than maybe the name of the lawyer who filed it which I think we all know will be Michael Elkin.

Where is South Aussie? I swear I remember her mentioning a bribe to get out of a murder charge in another case was around 150 grand. That is exactly what HM wants the money for. And why she's been so smug about it all. She has been told that she is entitled to her money and that she can buy her way out of this I'm sure. She probably never imagined her Uncle would refuse to send her the funds. And when he accused them of needing it for a bribe, they cut the amount in half? So the other half was to go to Elkin? And he figures if he can get the money for the bribe to get her off, she'll get out and get all her money to pay him eventually. Hmmm....I wonder if he'll be willing to front the cash himself? :thinking:



MOO

Or...she had no problem halving the requested amount because it was for both HM and TS.

 

[Orange Tabby]

Yeah, I finally found where to look and only the filings as of yesterday are there. So we'll likely see the filing online tomorrow but won't be able to see much other than maybe the name of the lawyer who filed it which I think we all know will be Michael Elkin.

I wrote in an earlier post of my own that I assumed it was Michael Elkin too. But the Chicago Tribune says the motion was filed by Geneva attorney Anthony Scifo.

I'm looking up some Slayer Rule stuff, so I'll leave it to others to find out if Scifo has a direct or obvious connection to Elkin or Favia.

 

[Kamille]

I wrote in an earlier post of my own that I assumed it was Michael Elkin too. But the Chicago Tribune says the motion was filed by Geneva attorney Anthony Scifo.

I'm looking up some Slayer Rule stuff, so I'll leave it to others to find out if Scifo has a direct or obvious connection to Elkin or Favia.

I think he was the one who originally filed one of the two probate cases on Sheila's estate?

ETA: Nope...that was two different people

 

[Kamille]

Or...she had no problem halving the requested amount because it was for both HM and TS.

OMG...I never thought of that . You're probably SO right!! While it would be nice to get him out of there too, leaving him behind wouldn't phase her a bit.

MOO

 

[Orange Tabby]

First Day of the Trial

I’ve been re-reading some of the accounts of the first day of the trial and a few things perplex me. My thoughts:

Two Trials
Why are Heather and Tommy being tried separately? Is this standard in a One-of-Them-Did-It and The-Other-One-Was-an-Accomplice case in Indonesia? Is this arrangement better for prosecutors if one defendant decides to change his story? (Obviously, I’m thinking of Tommy.) If Heather isn’t in Tommy’s courtroom, will he be more likely to testify to more damaging things against her? Or is this arrangement unusual? If so, why are they being tried separately?

Motive
On the one hand, prosecutors argue that the murder was premeditated. They say there is evidence that Heather offered to pay $50,000 to have her mother murdered, and that Heather and Tommy considered specific plans, such as suffocating Sheila with a pillow. On the other hand, when describing the actual murder, the prosecutor appears to believe the “Sheila called Tommy a naughty name” argument (which I don’t believe for one minute) and that this enraged the young couple, causing Heather to say that she wanted her mother dead and Tommy to brutally assault her.

Am I the only one who finds this a confusing position for the prosecution? Did they premeditate the murder or was it a crime committed during an argument when passions were running high? It seems like the prosecutor is arguing both of these things. While it is possible they premeditated a murder but never settled on details and ended up killing their victim in a rage, isn’t it far more likely that the rage story is a cover-up, given that they actively plotted Sheila’s death? Isn’t it giving the defendants a big helping hand to accept the “lost control in a moment of anger” story? Or is this just a kitchen sink approach to motive, where the prosecution throws in everything and lets the judges decide?

How the Murder Happened

Prosecutors alleged that Schaefer, who wept as he entered court, "blindly hit" Von Wiese Mack with a bowl in a fit of rage after she directed a racial slur at him during an argument...

"The defendant, overwhelmed with emotion and anger, picked up the glass fruit bowl and swung it at her face," ...

"Wiese tried to push the handle towards Schaefer and it hit his mouth, making him angrier and more emotional. Using both hands, Schaefer blindly hit her as hard as he could between her eyes and nose with the fruit bowl." He then continued hitting her face on the bed "until she stopped moving", he added. [Source: Agence France Presse]​

This follows directly from the last point. Why are the prosecutors accepting everything in Tommy's and Heather's accounts as fact? That Sheila used a racial slur? That Tommy acted in anger and not as the result of advance planning? That Tommy was never spurred on by Heather? That Sheila’s self-defense actually is an excuse for further attacks by Tommy? Are the prosecutors really conceding all these points?

Heather’s Role

“The indictment said that 19-year-old Heather Mack hid in the bathroom during the attack before the couple stuffed the victim's body in a suitcase.” [Source: Agence France Presse]​

Do the prosecutors actually accept Heather’s story???

Indonesian Approach
Is it possible that Indonesian prosecutors are bound to include in their initial presentation the best possible case for the defendants and that the arguments highlighted above are not part of the prosecution case, and the prosecutors do not believe them, but are included as a matter of procedure? Otherwise, I cannot understand how they can cede so much ground in the very opening moments of the trial. Yet the news reports read as if the prosecutors accept nearly everything the two defendants have said. I don’t get it.

I drew up these notes earlier today and was going to sleep on it before posting. But now I wonder if some of you good people are going to tell me that at least some of this stuff could be explained by a potential bribe in the amount, say, of US$150,000! Surely that would be too blatant, yes?

Agence France Presse story here (previously cited on this board): http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/us-couple-go-on-trial/1590464.html

 

[Kamille]

I wrote in an earlier post of my own that I assumed it was Michael Elkin too. But the Chicago Tribune says the motion was filed by Geneva attorney Anthony Scifo.

I'm looking up some Slayer Rule stuff, so I'll leave it to others to find out if Scifo has a direct or obvious connection to Elkin or Favia.

Can't find anything just yet since both of those attorneys are playing super secret games with their SM accounts. Up and then down and then private. Wonder why that would be? :thinking:

Anyway I think he probably has more experience than Elkin with this type of thing as a family law attorney and Favia is already representing the baby so I assume it would be a conflict for her to be filing this. I wonder if this new attorney has done his homework and knows what he's filing for? And that he's going to be lambasted in the comments sections of news articles for trying to help a murderer get away with...well murder.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

First Day of the Trial

I’ve been re-reading some of the accounts of the first day of the trial and a few things perplex me. My thoughts:

Two Trials
Why are Heather and Tommy being tried separately? Is this standard in a One-of-Them-Did-It and The-Other-One-Was-an-Accomplice case in Indonesia? Is this arrangement better for prosecutors if one defendant decides to change his story? (Obviously, I’m thinking of Tommy.) If Heather isn’t in Tommy’s courtroom, will he be more likely to testify to more damaging things against her? Or is this arrangement unusual? If so, why are they being tried separately?

Motive
On the one hand, prosecutors argue that the murder was premeditated. They say there is evidence that Heather offered to pay $50,000 to have her mother murdered, and that Heather and Tommy considered specific plans, such as suffocating Sheila with a pillow. On the other hand, when describing the actual murder, the prosecutor appears to believe the “Sheila called Tommy a naughty name” argument (which I don’t believe for one minute) and that this enraged the young couple, causing Heather to say that she wanted her mother dead and Tommy to brutally assault her.

Am I the only one who finds this a confusing position for the prosecution? Did they premeditate the murder or was it a crime committed during an argument when passions were running high? It seems like the prosecutor is arguing both of these things. While it is possible they premeditated a murder but never settled on details and ended up killing their victim in a rage, isn’t it far more likely that the rage story is a cover-up, given that they actively plotted Sheila’s death? Isn’t it giving the defendants a big helping hand to accept the “lost control in a moment of anger” story? Or is this just a kitchen sink approach to motive, where the prosecution throws in everything and lets the judges decide?

How the Murder Happened

Prosecutors alleged that Schaefer, who wept as he entered court, "blindly hit" Von Wiese Mack with a bowl in a fit of rage after she directed a racial slur at him during an argument...

"The defendant, overwhelmed with emotion and anger, picked up the glass fruit bowl and swung it at her face," ...

"Wiese tried to push the handle towards Schaefer and it hit his mouth, making him angrier and more emotional. Using both hands, Schaefer blindly hit her as hard as he could between her eyes and nose with the fruit bowl." He then continued hitting her face on the bed "until she stopped moving", he added. [Source: Agence France Presse]​

This follows directly from the last point. Why are the prosecutors accepting everything in Tommy's and Heather's accounts as fact? That Sheila used a racial slur? That Tommy acted in anger and not as the result of advance planning? That Tommy was never spurred on by Heather? That Sheila’s self-defense actually is an excuse for further attacks by Tommy? Are the prosecutors really conceding all these points?

Heather’s Role

“The indictment said that 19-year-old Heather Mack hid in the bathroom during the attack before the couple stuffed the victim's body in a suitcase.” [Source: Agence France Presse]​

Do the prosecutors actually accept Heather’s story???

Indonesian Approach
Is it possible that Indonesian prosecutors are bound to include in their initial presentation the best possible case for the defendants and that the arguments highlighted above are not part of the prosecution case, and the prosecutors do not believe them, but are included as a matter of procedure? Otherwise, I cannot understand how they can cede so much ground in the very opening moments of the trial. Yet the news reports read as if the prosecutors accept nearly everything the two defendants have said. I don’t get it.

I drew up these notes earlier today and was going to sleep on it before posting. But now I wonder if some of you good people are going to tell me that at least some of this stuff could be explained by a potential bribe in the amount, say, of US$150,000! Surely that would be too blatant, yes?

Agence France Presse story here (previously cited on this board): http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/us-couple-go-on-trial/1590464.html

BBM

That's exactly what I was going to suggest to you. That they have left some leeway for the bribe they are expecting?

MOO

 

[Quester]

Yeah, I finally found where to look and only the filings as of yesterday are there. So we'll likely see the filing online tomorrow but won't be able to see much other than maybe the name of the lawyer who filed it which I think we all know will be Michael Elkin.

Where is South Aussie? I swear I remember her mentioning a bribe to get out of a murder charge in another case was around 150 grand. That is exactly what HM wants the money for. And why she's been so smug about it all. She has been told that she is entitled to her money and that she can buy her way out of this I'm sure. She probably never imagined her Uncle would refuse to send her the funds. And when he accused them of needing it for a bribe, they cut the amount in half? So the other half was to go to Elkin? And he figures if he can get the money for the bribe to get her off, she'll get out and get all her money to pay him eventually. Hmmm....I wonder if he'll be willing to front the cash himself? :thinking:



MOO

OR ... the 300k was intended as a bribe to benefit both HM and TS???

If so, did HM cut TS out of that scheme by cutting the amount requested by half???

ETA: Haha - I read a little further and saw that ajaylee already hit this point!

 

[Kamille]

Sheila von Wiese-Mack named her only child as the sole beneficiary when she filed her latest will in May. Her daughter, who has been held in Indonesia since the grisly Aug. 12 discovery, originally had sought $300,000 from her mother's estate to pay for legal bills, the filing states.

Mack later lowered the request to half that amount, and asked that her uncle place it in an account with the U.S. Consulate, but he still declined. The parties are expected to appear before a Cook County judge Friday.

"To date, (the trustee) has not released one penny to assist Heather in any way, shape or form," the emergency motion states. "Said legal funds are a necessity to preserve Heather's life ... (The trustee's) actions do not comport with good faith or fair dealings and are wholly unconscionable."

http://www.redeyechicago.com/news/local/ct-bali-murder-estate-met-20150115,0,912925.story

I wonder how long it was after May 2014 when SWM filed her will leaving everything to HM, that HM was looking for a hitman?

Okay so who at the US consulate there is involved in this bribe? And how can this lawyer say with a straight face that HM needs $300,000 or even $150,000 for "legal bills" in a country where everyone is appointed an attorney and they really have no say in criminal cases anyway. Can you imagine any Indonesian attorney being able to charge one individual anywhere close to those numbers for representation on a criminal case? Those are US defence attorney figures IMO. And that amount and then split in half is just so blatantly obvious as bribe money IMO.

MOO

 

[FormerOakParker]

BBM

That's exactly what I was going to suggest to you. That they have left some leeway for the bribe they are expecting?

MOO

Disgusting, but a possibility. This case has certainly shown me how naive I can be about potential justice here. However, still hoping that it prevails for the sake of the Weise family despite lawyers, HM and TS ...all vultures, IMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yeah, I finally found where to look and only the filings as of yesterday are there. So we'll likely see the filing online tomorrow but won't be able to see much other than maybe the name of the lawyer who filed it which I think we all know will be Michael Elkin.

Where is South Aussie? I swear I remember her mentioning a bribe to get out of a murder charge in another case was around 150 grand. That is exactly what HM wants the money for. And why she's been so smug about it all. She has been told that she is entitled to her money and that she can buy her way out of this I'm sure. She probably never imagined her Uncle would refuse to send her the funds. And when he accused them of needing it for a bribe, they cut the amount in half? So the other half was to go to Elkin? And he figures if he can get the money for the bribe to get her off, she'll get out and get all her money to pay him eventually. Hmmm....I wonder if he'll be willing to front the cash himself? :thinking:



MOO

Yes, Schapelle Corby's Indonesian lawyers tried to get $500,000 to bribe judges in Indonesia.


Schapelle Corby's lawyers tried to get the Australian Government to give them $500,000 to bribe the Indonesian judges overseeing her appeal, two Perth lawyers claimed yesterday.

Mark Trowell, one of two QCs asked by the Government to help her case, said the request was made earlier this month at a meeting he attended in Bali.

Corby's Indonesian lawyers also requested in a written document that $500,000 be forwarded to them from the Australian Government for "lobbying".

Mr Trowell and fellow Perth lawyer Phillip Laskaris were initially sounded out about a bribe over dinner in Bali three weeks ago with the head of Corby's defence team, Vasu Rasiah, and her lawyer, Lily Lubis.

Mr Trowell confirmed yesterday that an approach had been made, saying that at first he thought it was a joke. "I kept pushing, pushing them to tell me what they saw as the best grounds of appeal," he said.

"Vasu said: 'Forget the merits of the appeal, all you have to do is put in the appeal and if you have got money to bribe the judges, you win the appeal.'

"I told him the Australian Government would never provide money to bribe judges.

"He said: 'There are no lawyers in Indonesia, only negotiators'."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/co...ribe-judges-qcs/2005/06/22/1119321792718.html

 

[SouthAussie]

Also ...

" ... we were also told that some members of IKADIN (Indonesian Bar Assoc.) had refused to sign a pledge not to bribe judges. We did not corroborate this claim with representatives of IKADIN, but the claim itself is neither surprising nor inconsistent with public statements made by some attorneys in relation to institutionalised corruption in the courts."

Indonesia, Law and Society by Timothy Lindsey, pg 586
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...ribery of judges lawyers in indonesia&f=false



"A large percentage of court cases are decided by bribes to judges, prosecutors or other officials. Lawyers are also guilty, since they are the ones to usually make the deals on behalf of their clients."

Indonesia Diplomatic Handbook: The Legal System and the Courts, by International Business Publications USA, pg 22
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...cases are decided by bribes to judges&f=false

 

[Kamille]

Thank you South Aussie. That pretty much confirms what we and Sheila's brother suspect. Can't wait to hear how it goes tomorrow in court. Although it might not make the news so we might have to hope RK77 does have a chance to sit in.

MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

So, this is HM's new lawyer.

Instead, she hired Ary Soenardi, a Bali-based lawyer, according to his LinkedIn page.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-ch...go-teen-wants-trust-fund-pay-criminal-defense


And here is some very recent (bribery) background on Ary Soenardi.

In a disturbing and dangerously frank two-page letter obtained by News Corp, Lubbe claims “lucky foreigners” from wealthy backgrounds are exchanging as much as $US120,000 for reduced sentences.

Lubbe — who’s directed his letter to Indonesian President-elect Joko Widodo or Jokowi — claims the money in his meth case was to be split between the judge and the prosecutor.

Lubbe’s lawyer, Ary B Soenardi — the same man who represented Sydney resident Leeza Ormsby on drugs charges — and fellow lawyer Iswahyudi denied they had suggested he pay a bribe.
“It is not true. It’s a defamation. We never told him to pay anything. We are helping him during the trial sincerely,” Iswahyudi said.

Mr Soenardi also conveyed the same statement.
“I don’t understand why he wrote that letter and said that I’ve told him to pay. Even for the food, we pay for him,” he said.

And Prosecutor Ketut Sujaya pleaded his innocence.
“For the sake of the God, I never asked for money or get anything from him. You can ask the lawyer. It is not true.”

http://www.news.com.au/world/bali-p...indonesian-jails/story-fndir2ev-1227014030151

 

[SouthAussie]

New Zealander may face light sentence for drug possession.

Ormsby’s lawyer, Ary Soenardi, said, “Anything can happen [in court], we will just hope for the best.”

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/...nce-drug-possession.html#sthash.sooWr7Ep.dpuf


Briton gets light sentence in drug case.

Ponder’s lawyer, Ary B. Soenardi said that he was happy with the verdict.

“It is a big surprise. I am happy about that,” he said. As the verdict was very light; Ary said he would advise his client against an appeal.

http://www.thebalidaily.com/2013-01-30/briton-gets-light-sentence-drug-case.html

 

[SouthAussie]

The British mother involved in a £1.6million cocaine smuggling plot is back home after spending a year behind bars in a Bali jail.

Dougall has been freed after serving a year in the squalid Kerobokan Prison.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iford-languishes-death-row.html#ixzz3OzTMdkhu


Speaking from Bali, her lawyer Ary B Soenardi said she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/story/2012-09-12/drug-smuggling-suspects-charged/


(I think this all presents a pretty good picture of what is going on with HM's 'change of lawyers' to Ary Soenardi.)

 

[SouthAussie]

Ary B. Soenardi

https://id.linkedin.com/pub/ary-b-soenardi/52/4b/144

 

[east2west]

I'd like to see the security video of the argument in the lobby as well as the luggage being hauled between floors and ultimately being placed on a trolley. I'd imagine the security footage will be presented in court.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk