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

[Orange Tabby]

There is an Indonesian language article at suluhbali.co which is dated 14 Jan 15 that outlines the various charges against the pair.

Here is the Google Translate version of what this article says are the specific charges lodged against Heather in this trial:

Heather Lois Mack sitting in a chair prisoner was charged under Article 340 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 338 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 353 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 351 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 of the Criminal Code to-1 and Article 181 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code to-1.​

Here is what I believe this all means, according to the Indonesian Criminal Code:

Article 340. Premeditated murder, maximum penalty: life imprisonment or execution. Heather’s Article 340 charge is in conjunction with Article 56, which relates to an accomplice. The significance of this is, as I have pointed out before, that even as an accomplice she still potentially faces the maximum penalty of the underlying crime, that is, she faces the potential of life imprisonment or execution if found guilty of this charge.

Article 338. Murder (possibly manslaughter, this is unclear to me, the code says “the person who with deliberate intent takes the life of another person” but also uses the word manslaughter), maximum penalty: 15 years. Again, this charge is in conjunction with Article 56.

Article 353, paragraph 3. Maltreatment committed with premeditation resulting in death, maximum penalty: 9 years. In conjunction with Article 56.

Article 351, paragraph 3. Maltreatment (without premeditation), maximum penalty: 7 years. In conjunction with Article 56.

Article 181. Concealing a dead body, maximum penalty: 9 months or a maximum fine of 300 rupiahs. In conjunction with Article 55. Article 55 relates to being a principal of the crime but not the sole perpetrator.

Article 56 speaks first of “persons who deliberately aid in the commission of the crime” and secondly, of those who “deliberately provide opportunity, means or information for the commission of the crime.” I believe Heather’s Article 56 indictments are of the first type.

It is interesting to note that Michael Elkin told OakPark.com that Heather was charged with (among other things) "murder" (not manslaughter) and that he said the "violence causing death" charge (presumably referring to the charged under Article 353) carries a 12-year maximum sentence. He also said that Heather was charged with crimes not mentioned above: hiding a criminal, which carries a 9-month prison sentence; and domestic violence, which carries a 15-year prison term.

Tommy’s charges, according to suluhbali.co, are the same as they list for Heather, except: none of his charges are in conjunction with either Articles 55 or 56.

Note on manslaughter: what this means varies by jurisdiction. One common definition of manslaughter includes intent to kill but with mitigating circumstances (in our case, presumably the alleged preceding argument) or an intent to cause serious bodily harm without an intent to kill. My point is that it seems what in the U.S. would be two distinct categories -- second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter -- are grouped together in Indonesia’s Article 338. (I repeat my usual caveat: IANAL.)

My belief is that a conviction on an Article 338 charge would automatically disbar Heather from benefiting from Sheila’s estate, as the Illinois slayer statute uses the expression “intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another,” although I imagine there are lawyers out there would try to help Heather get the funds by arguing (were she convicted on this charge) that the attack was “justified” and if that argument prevailed, a civil suit would be necessary to keep Heather from benefiting from killing her mother.

In Indonesian (but strangely with a Columbian top level domain): http://suluhbali.co/kasus-mayat-dalam-koper-pelaku-terancam-hukuman-mati/

There is a very similar article in Indonesian and from an Indonesian source, dateline 13 Feb 15, here -- and with no mention of any proceedings since the indictment was read in court:

http://humas.polri.go.id/berita/Pages/KASUS-MAYAT-DALAM-KOPER-PELAKU-TERANCAM-HUKUMAN-MATI.aspx

Eklin's list of the charges, previously posted, can be found here:

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Article...-murder-suspect-asks-to-be-removed-from-case/

 

[Orange Tabby]

No. Intestate succession doesn't apply here since there was a will and trust.

I was replying to the bolded part of your post #801 (first on this page) where you wrote [BBM]:

If Stella inherited and didn't leave a will, the property would go to her daughter. If the slayer rule becomes in affect, I believe she would not receive the trust and since Stella is not named as an alternate beneficiary, it seems the monies might go to whoever else is listed in the trust as an alternate. Or if no one is, then whoever is next in line to Sheila via intestate succession. I believe that would be her brother, but I'm not sure.

 

[Weezer Fan]

There is an Indonesian language article at suluhbali.co which is dated 14 Jan 15 that outlines the various charges against the pair.

Here is the Google Translate version of what this article says are the specific charges lodged against Heather in this trial:

Heather Lois Mack sitting in a chair prisoner was charged under Article 340 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 338 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 353 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 351 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 of the Criminal Code to-1 and Article 181 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code to-1.​

Here is what I believe this all means, according to the Indonesian Criminal Code:

Article 340. Premeditated murder, maximum penalty: life imprisonment or execution. Heather’s Article 340 charge is in conjunction with Article 56, which relates to an accomplice. The significance of this is, as I have pointed out before, that even as an accomplice she still potentially faces the maximum penalty of the underlying crime, that is, she faces the potential of life imprisonment or execution if found guilty of this charge.

Article 338. Murder (possibly manslaughter, this is unclear to me, the code says “the person who with deliberate intent takes the life of another person” but also uses the word manslaughter), maximum penalty: 15 years. Again, this charge is in conjunction with Article 56.

Article 353, paragraph 3. Maltreatment committed with premeditation resulting in death, maximum penalty: 9 years. In conjunction with Article 56.

Article 351, paragraph 3. Maltreatment (without premeditation), maximum penalty: 7 years. In conjunction with Article 56.

Article 181. Concealing a dead body, maximum penalty: 9 months or a maximum fine of 300 rupiahs. In conjunction with Article 55. Article 55 relates to being a principal of the crime but not the sole perpetrator.

Article 56 speaks first of “persons who deliberately aid in the commission of the crime” and secondly, of those who “deliberately provide opportunity, means or information for the commission of the crime.” I believe Heather’s Article 56 indictments are of the first type.

It is interesting to note that Michael Elkin told OakPark.com that Heather was charged with (among other things) "murder" (not manslaughter) and that he said the "violence causing death" charge (presumably referring to the charged under Article 353) carries a 12-year maximum sentence. He also said that Heather was charged with crimes not mentioned above: hiding a criminal, which carries a 9-month prison sentence; and domestic violence, which carries a 15-year prison term.

Tommy’s charges, according to suluhbali.co, are the same as they list for Heather, except: none of his charges are in conjunction with either Articles 55 or 56.

Note on manslaughter: what this means varies by jurisdiction. One common definition of manslaughter includes intent to kill but with mitigating circumstances (in our case, presumably the alleged preceding argument) or an intent to cause serious bodily harm without an intent to kill. My point is that it seems what in the U.S. would be two distinct categories -- second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter -- are grouped together in Indonesia’s Article 338. (I repeat my usual caveat: IANAL.)

My belief is that a conviction on an Article 338 charge would automatically disbar Heather from benefiting from Sheila’s estate, as the Illinois slayer statute uses the expression “intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another,” although I imagine there are lawyers out there would try to help Heather get the funds by arguing (were she convicted on this charge) that the attack was “justified” and if that argument prevailed, a civil suit would be necessary to keep Heather from benefiting from killing her mother.

In Indonesian (but strangely with a Columbian top level domain): http://suluhbali.co/kasus-mayat-dalam-koper-pelaku-terancam-hukuman-mati/

There is a very similar article in Indonesian and from an Indonesian source, dateline 13 Feb 15, here -- and with no mention of any proceedings since the indictment was read in court:

http://humas.polri.go.id/berita/Pages/KASUS-MAYAT-DALAM-KOPER-PELAKU-TERANCAM-HUKUMAN-MATI.aspx

Eklin's list of the charges, previously posted, can be found here:

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Article...-murder-suspect-asks-to-be-removed-from-case/

I read the google translates too. It looks like there was something going on in court yesterday, where the prosecution listed all their charges against HM and TS. It does not say when the next court appearance will be.

 

[Weezer Fan]

The google translate link:
https://translate.google.com/#auto/...RANCAM-HUKUMAN-MATI.aspx#sthash.7LxYLLJA.dpuf

Perbuatan defendant Tommy Schaefer (21) facing the death penalty and his girlfriend, Heather Lois Mack (19) could face 20 years in prison.


So it looks like Heather is NOT facing the firing squad.

 

[newone]

The google translate link:
https://translate.google.com/#auto/...RANCAM-HUKUMAN-MATI.aspx#sthash.7LxYLLJA.dpuf

Perbuatan defendant Tommy Schaefer (21) facing the death penalty and his girlfriend, Heather Lois Mack (19) could face 20 years in prison.


So it looks like Heather is NOT facing the firing squad.

OMG............that's just wrong......

 

[Orange Tabby]

I read the google translates too. It looks like there was something going on in court yesterday, where the prosecution listed all their charges against HM and TS. It does not say when the next court appearance will be.

I don't know if there was a court session this week, and the articles I linked to don't make reference to anything except the indictment itself, which was presented in court some long time ago. They don't refer to anything that happened this week.

 

[Orange Tabby]

The google translate link:

Perbuatan defendant Tommy Schaefer (21) facing the death penalty and his girlfriend, Heather Lois Mack (19) could face 20 years in prison.


So it looks like Heather is NOT facing the firing squad.

I think the article is just plain wrong on that point.

I have previously posted the text of Articles 55 through 57 of the Indonesian criminal code, which I believe makes clear that an accomplice can be subject to the highest penalty of the underlying crime (although this is not a mandatory penalty). The vast majority of news reports have said she potentially faces the death penalty. The motion brought by Heather's attorney Antony Scifo before Judge Cohen said she faces the death penalty, and if he made such a serious misrepresentation, I think he could be sanctioned for it. (But I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.)

In any event, I don't think it's that big of an issue, because as I have said before, the death penalty is only meted out about ten times a year in Indonesia, with about half of those going to drug traffickers. One recent, very brutal murder committed by a young couple, which included hours of torture before their victim died, resulted in 20 year sentences for both defendants. So even if Heather and Tommy are both found guilty, I doubt either would be given the death penalty. But obviously, I'm just guessing.

 

[gitana1]

Illinois has a posthumous child clause in its rules of descent and distribution. But to me, a layman, it seems only to apply to the estates of fathers, not grandparents. What do you think?

(755 ILCS 5/2-3) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 2-3)
Sec. 2-3. Posthumous child.) A posthumous child of a decedent shall receive the same share of an estate as if the child had been born in the decedent's lifetime.
(Source: P.A. 84-390.)

Illinois Compiled Statutes
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...&ChapterID=60&SeqStart=3700000&SeqEnd=5000000

I'm perplexed by the part of your post which I've put in bold. I think maybe a sentence you drafted was accidentally deleted. Or did you mean to write Heather (instead of Stella) and are talking about what would happen if Heather first inherited her mother's estate and then died without a will?

Yes! I meant Heather. And from what I can tell, if the slayer rule goes into affect, Stella is not the next in line for inheritance. Sheila's brother would be, because Stella wasn't born yet.: http://nationalparalegal.edu/willsT...roEstatePlanning/IntestateSuccessionRules.asp

A posthumous child refers to the decedent's child, not their children's children. Like if a man died before his child was born.

I was replying to the bolded part of your post #801 (first on this page) where you wrote [BBM]:

Oops! Sorry. That was confusing on my part!! I didn't know that you were responding to me because you didn't use the quote box!!

Let me clarify. There is a trust. Typically, people name alternate beneficiaries in trusts. So I believe Sheila named alternate beneficiaries.

If she didn't, AND the slayer rule went into effect, then yes, intestate succession would apply.

In that case, though, I do not believe Sheila's posthumous grandchild would be next in line to inherit (see above).

 

[tarjessi]

OMG............that's just wrong......

I think the people on here who have predicted that they have played this out to their advantage are right. Well Heather played it out to her advantage. Tommy is going to die for doing Heather's dirty work although I honestly believe they both laid into Sheila when she was sleeping and she woke up with the first blow. You never know Heather might have been cunning enough to ask Tommy to bring the fruit bowl down from her room to replace the one she just killed her mother with and knew he would be seen on film bringing it down and Tommy only arrived to help put her body in the suitcase. The text messages seem to show he knew about the plan and most likely participated equally so I doubt there was that depth of thought or planning.

Heather will be out in less than 20 years...once she is free from the jail in Bali the US then needs to prosecute and put her in prison for the remainder of her life.

I hate leniency towards females in cases like this...it happens over and over. They are quite often the instigators and motivators...

 

[TupeloMz]

I keep seeing references to text messages. I have had to play "catch up" on this thread for the most part and missed it. Can someone help me with the text messages? TiA

 

[Quester]

I keep seeing references to text messages. I have had to play "catch up" on this thread for the most part and missed it. Can someone help me with the text messages? TiA

The texts where HM & TS supposedly discuss murder plans haven't been publicly released ... yet! HTH

 

[TupeloMz]

Thank you Quester

 

[Mountain Misst]

There is an Indonesian language article at suluhbali.co which is dated 14 Jan 15 that outlines the various charges against the pair.

Here is the Google Translate version of what this article says are the specific charges lodged against Heather in this trial:

Heather Lois Mack sitting in a chair prisoner was charged under Article 340 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 338 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 353 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 351 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 of the Criminal Code to-1 and Article 181 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code to-1.​

Here is what I believe this all means, according to the Indonesian Criminal Code:

Article 340. Premeditated murder, maximum penalty: life imprisonment or execution. Heather’s Article 340 charge is in conjunction with Article 56, which relates to an accomplice. The significance of this is, as I have pointed out before, that even as an accomplice she still potentially faces the maximum penalty of the underlying crime, that is, she faces the potential of life imprisonment or execution if found guilty of this charge.

Article 338. Murder (possibly manslaughter, this is unclear to me, the code says “the person who with deliberate intent takes the life of another person” but also uses the word manslaughter), maximum penalty: 15 years. Again, this charge is in conjunction with Article 56.

Article 353, paragraph 3. Maltreatment committed with premeditation resulting in death, maximum penalty: 9 years. In conjunction with Article 56.

Article 351, paragraph 3. Maltreatment (without premeditation), maximum penalty: 7 years. In conjunction with Article 56.

Article 181. Concealing a dead body, maximum penalty: 9 months or a maximum fine of 300 rupiahs. In conjunction with Article 55. Article 55 relates to being a principal of the crime but not the sole perpetrator.

Article 56 speaks first of “persons who deliberately aid in the commission of the crime” and secondly, of those who “deliberately provide opportunity, means or information for the commission of the crime.” I believe Heather’s Article 56 indictments are of the first type.

It is interesting to note that Michael Elkin told OakPark.com that Heather was charged with (among other things) "murder" (not manslaughter) and that he said the "violence causing death" charge (presumably referring to the charged under Article 353) carries a 12-year maximum sentence. He also said that Heather was charged with crimes not mentioned above: hiding a criminal, which carries a 9-month prison sentence; and domestic violence, which carries a 15-year prison term.

Tommy’s charges, according to suluhbali.co, are the same as they list for Heather, except: none of his charges are in conjunction with either Articles 55 or 56.

Note on manslaughter: what this means varies by jurisdiction. One common definition of manslaughter includes intent to kill but with mitigating circumstances (in our case, presumably the alleged preceding argument) or an intent to cause serious bodily harm without an intent to kill. My point is that it seems what in the U.S. would be two distinct categories -- second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter -- are grouped together in Indonesia’s Article 338. (I repeat my usual caveat: IANAL.)

My belief is that a conviction on an Article 338 charge would automatically disbar Heather from benefiting from Sheila’s estate, as the Illinois slayer statute uses the expression “intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another,” although I imagine there are lawyers out there would try to help Heather get the funds by arguing (were she convicted on this charge) that the attack was “justified” and if that argument prevailed, a civil suit would be necessary to keep Heather from benefiting from killing her mother.

In Indonesian (but strangely with a Columbian top level domain): http://suluhbali.co/kasus-mayat-dalam-koper-pelaku-terancam-hukuman-mati/

There is a very similar article in Indonesian and from an Indonesian source, dateline 13 Feb 15, here -- and with no mention of any proceedings since the indictment was read in court:

http://humas.polri.go.id/berita/Pages/KASUS-MAYAT-DALAM-KOPER-PELAKU-TERANCAM-HUKUMAN-MATI.aspx

Eklin's list of the charges, previously posted, can be found here:

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Article...-murder-suspect-asks-to-be-removed-from-case/

BBM

FYI: As of July 10, 2010, there are no registration restrictions on .co domains; any individual or entity in the world can register a .co domain.

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

 

[Orange Tabby]

BBM

FYI: As of July 10, 2010, there are no registration restrictions on .co domains; any individual or entity in the world can register a .co domain.

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

Thanks for the interesting information. Being ignorant of that explains why I was puzzled.

What does "co" stand for? Does Columbia have a new and different top level domain?

 

[FigTree]

Yes! I meant Heather. And from what I can tell, if the slayer rule goes into affect, Stella is not the next in line for inheritance. Sheila's brother would be, because Stella wasn't born yet.: http://nationalparalegal.edu/willsT...roEstatePlanning/IntestateSuccessionRules.asp

A posthumous child refers to the decedent's child, not their children's children. Like if a man died before his child was born.
-----

Let me clarify. There is a trust. Typically, people name alternate beneficiaries in trusts. So I believe Sheila named alternate beneficiaries.

If she didn't, AND the slayer rule went into effect, then yes, intestate succession would apply.

In that case, though, I do not believe Sheila's posthumous grandchild would be next in line to inherit (see above).

I find that so interesting - thank-you gitana1, I will be curious to see further development related to this as the case moves forward, because I think the money is (and has been) the most significant factor into the cause of what happened, how the trial is impacted by it, the strategies being put into play, and the people involved (including legals in 2 Countries & the baby due).

 

[Orange Tabby]

The After-Born Child

Yes! I meant Heather. And from what I can tell, if the slayer rule goes into affect, Stella is not the next in line for inheritance. Sheila's brother would be, because Stella wasn't born yet.: http://nationalparalegal.edu/willsT...roEstatePlanning/IntestateSuccessionRules.asp

A posthumous child refers to the decedent's child, not their children's children. Like if a man died before his child was born.



Oops! Sorry. That was confusing on my part!! I didn't know that you were responding to me because you didn't use the quote box!!

Let me clarify. There is a trust. Typically, people name alternate beneficiaries in trusts. So I believe Sheila named alternate beneficiaries.

If she didn't, AND the slayer rule went into effect, then yes, intestate succession would apply.

In that case, though, I do not believe Sheila's posthumous grandchild would be next in line to inherit (see above).

Very helpful post, gitana1. As always, thanks for your time and expertise.

1. I’ve read the paralegal article you link and I can’t find any reference whatever to posthumous children. Can you quote the part that is relevant?

2. I take it you explicitly disagree with the nolo.com claim that in Illinois, “Relatives conceived before -- but born after -- you die inherit as if they had been born while you were alive.” This does not refer only to a child of a decedent, but to the posthumous (or "after-born") child vis-à-vis other relatives.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...-illinois.html

3. I find it hard to understand why a posthumous child is only relevant to the estate of a parent. For example, the Uniform Probate Code says:

Section 2-104(a)(2) An individual in gestation at a decedent’s death is deemed to be living at the decedent’s death if the individual lives 120 hours after birth.​

http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/probate code/2014_UPC_Final_apr23.pdf

This is general language, not language specific only to parents, but applicable to grandparents, uncles, etc.

4. The idea of posthumous grandchildren is understood in the law of trusts. According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, second edition (2008), as an example, 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):

The existence of an after-born child has significant legal ramifications upon gifts made under wills and trusts. …

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.​

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

5. In a post I made last September, I noted that the idea that a conceived child not yet born at the time of someone else’s death is considered “born” for various legal purposes and this concept has very long historical roots, dating back to Roman law. (Sheila thread Number 2, post #175, with links.)


I recognize that this aspect of the discussion is only relevant if Sheila did not name alternate beneficiaries.

Your point that “[t]ypically, people name alternate beneficiaries in trusts” is particularly important, and could make the discussion of intestate rights of an after-born child completely moot.

 

[Orange Tabby]

Sheila’s Alternate Beneficiaries

We haven’t seen Sheila’s trust document, nor have we seen the text of any motions filed in Judge Cohen’s court which refer to this document. All our information (as I understand it) about alternate beneficiaries of Sheila’s trust is either second-hand or implied.

An experienced lawyer, gitana1 tells us that typically people name alternate beneficiaries in trusts. This makes sense to me.

So, if Sheila did name alternate beneficiaries, who are they?

The Cook County Record reports that Anthony Scifo, Heather’s attorney, filed a seven-page emergency motion on January 15. It resulted in a January 16 hearing in the court of Judge Neil Cohen to discuss releasing some of the funds from Sheila’s trust to pay for Heather’s defense. The article also says:

It [the motion] goes on to explain that Mack is the sole beneficiary of her mother’s trust and Wiese, as its trustee, as well as next in line to inherit the funds — about $1.56 million, as of Dec. 30 — behind Mack and her unborn child. [BBM]​

So Scifo’s motion claimed that Stella inherits before William Wiese.

http://cookcountyrecord.com/news/26...-county-seeking-trust-funds-to-pay-for-lawyer

Judge Cohen seems to accept that the beneficiary “line” runs from Heather first to Stella second to William Wiese third. The Chicago Tribune reported that in the hearing on January 16 Cohen said that “Mack's uncle could receive proceeds from the trust if she [Heather] is executed and her baby girl does not survive.” [BBM]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82554099/

Some questions:

1. I assume Scifo, as Heather’s attorney, has read the trust document. Assuming the Cook County Record is accurately reporting Scifo’s motion, what do people here conclude about his claim that Heather and then Stella stand in line to inherit from Sheila’s trust before William Wiese? Do you think this means Sheila made her grandchildren her first alternate beneficiaries? If not, why would Scifo name William Wiese as inheriting only after Stella?

2. Scifo's argument's against William Wiese controlling the trust would have been even stronger if he had argued that WW would inherit immediately after Heather (without the child intervening), yet he didn't advance that argument. What reason could there by except that Stella is named as alternate beneficiary first? (Obviously in general terms: "my grandchildren" or somesuch.)

3. Judge Cohen similarly puts both Heather and Stella in front of William Wiese as benefiting from Sheila’s trust. Before the hearing commenced, would Judge Cohen have read the trust document? Would that be the usual course if he was being asked to rule on use of the trust? Or would he rely on representations by lawyers in submitted motions and claims made during the hearing as to what the trust said? Cohen explicitly quoted the provisions of the trust during that hearing, noting that it was for the "health, support, education and maintenance" of sole beneficiary Heather Mack. Was this because he read the document or only motions which selected bits and pieces to serve their own purposes?

Naturally, they could be mistaken or sloppy. What do others think?

Doesn’t it seem possible (likely?) that Sheila made some provision, “in the alternate” for her grandchildren before she did for her brother? Why else would Heather’s attorney and Judge Cohen say that Stella stands between William Wiese and Sheila’s trust? Wouldn't a woman who was prepared to give all her money to a monster have no qualms about giving it, in the alternative, to the monster's children (who could well be be minors at her death) before giving it to a brother with a career and stability and who is relatively late and settled in life?

 

[SouthAussie]

I think that there was no reason for Sheila to include any of Heather’s possible offspring in the trust at the time it was drawn up.

Could she not have just adjusted the terms of the trust if/when grandchildren were born? Add a codicil?

 

[Orange Tabby]

I think that there was no reason for Sheila to include any of Heather’s possible offspring in the trust at the time it was drawn up.

Could she not have just adjusted the terms of the trust if/when grandchildren were born? Add a codicil?

I assume along with you that adjustments could be made. Certainly. And that works in all directions: Sheila could have later excluded Heather's children.

Why then, in your view, did Heather's attorney Anthony Scifo and Judge Neil Cohen, the latter who sat in judgement as to how the trust was to be used in the here and now and quoted the trust document directly during his first hearing, both say that Stella inherits before William Wiese?

 

[SouthAussie]

I assume along with you that adjustments could be made. Certainly. And that works in all directions: Sheila could have later excluded Heather's children.

Why then, in your view, did Heather's attorney Anthony Scifo and Judge Neil Cohen, the latter who sat in judgement as to how the trust was to be used in the here and now and quoted the trust document directly during his first hearing, both say that Stella inherits before William Wiese?

I know it is not what Gitana said, and I fully respect her opinion and am by no means a lawyer myself but, according to what was said by the judge and Scifo, the way I think it may go in Illinois is ......

Right now the money is legally Heather's money - even if it is held in trust (and even if she does not deserve a penny of it ).

If she 'dies' (slayer rule), it goes to her next of kin. The living baby in her belly. Even if that has to be via a court battle/ruling involving the baby's lawyer.

I wonder how long she was planning Sheila's murder. Was Stella part of the money-grabbing plan? I feel pretty sure that Sheila would have discussed the trust with Heather.

If Heather is not convicted of murder - she could require more and more money from the trust prior to turning 30 due to being a non-working mother. I guess William Wiese cannot force her to get a job.