GUILTY Bali - Sheila von Wiese Mack, 62, found dead in suitcase, 12 Aug 2014 #5

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was an email from Ary Soenardi. Claiming his client was suicidal because she was worried about getting the money.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bali-trust-allegations-met-20150227-story.html

I can't imagine under any circumstances how a client can be suicidal because they are worried they may not be able to afford a specific attorney. Especially when she had already had a few provided to her at no charge. And that she had been told to find a different attorney and she blatantly refused. Even though this one had only been on her case for a few weeks. That right there is extremely suspect.
 
Kamille said:
Cohen refused to listen to WW's expert on bribes and corruption in the Indonesian court system. He refused to hold a separate hearing to deal with the issue. Somehow WW's attorney was held in contempt and fined. He made his decision without listening to the "other side".

MOO
Click to expand...

He listened and ruled, he said there was not enough evidence to hold a separate hearing. What was presented were not facts about this particular lawyer but rumors and innuendo. Maybe what you are unaware of is that WW's attys would have had to make an "offer of proof" at the start of the hearing. This is where the atty. tells the judge and parties, this is what I'm going to prove and this is what I'm going to prove it with. The judge can and generally does inquire more about the proofs and tells them if they have met the standard for admissible evidence. They did not. The expert was a professor that wanted to testify as to an overview of a system of corruption, not proof specific to this particular attorney, this case, this panel of judges and they didn't have it and Cohen knew it and said "you don't have enough evidence for me to give you what you want and guess what, we're not setting another separate hearing so you can have a fishing expedition", if you had your proofs, you should have brought them. Not "somehow WW's attorney was...fined", he violated the rules. He made remarks that came under court decorum which are highly frowned upon, every lawyer knows there are limits to how far you can go with your judge and if you persist you may be subject to sanctions...it happens all the time in courtrooms all over America and in keeping with that he apologized to the court, the court accepted his apology and admission he was out of line and the contempt and fine were dropped. Are you talking about the email that was read in open court and one the record Cohen called emotional blackmail??? The one that did not change his decision? I know we are ever unlikely to view Judge Cohen in the same light and I'm ok with that, I hope you are too. :truce:
 
Kamille said:
She gets full control when she's 30 but apparently she can still request ridiculous amounts for questionable purposes prior to that so I don't really see what the purpose was other than to make some lawyers rich.

MOO
Click to expand...

Just think, the charming couple murdered for the money that could ultimately set them free. Unbelievable!
 
Kamille said:
That right there is extremely suspect.
Click to expand...

The basis of early withdrawal on a Trust is taking into the consideration if it is more beneficial now to release the funds. eg. If HM did not get a dime she could die, so obviously the release definitely fits the condition to release.

Cohen may not have the "right" to determine whether there is a bribe or not, hear any other testimony other than that of the Trust Funds release. That may not be within his jurisdiction. He is in Chancery Court, not Law or Civil so his only judgement is to decide if pre-mature release of funds are more beneficial now than at age 30. (You can request trust funds say at age 21, from a maturity date of 30, to go to college, or say for braces)

What is controversial is to say - no, you can not go to that school, no you can not choose your own lawyer, no you can not pick your own orthodontist - the trust will do that for you, then you can have the $. Which is what initially started with Soenardi but was later allowed.
 
gracehatter said:
He listened and ruled, he said there was not enough evidence to hold a separate hearing. What was presented were not facts about this particular lawyer but rumors and innuendo. Maybe what you are unaware of is that WW's attys would have had to make an "offer of proof" at the start of the hearing. This is where the atty. tells the judge and parties, this is what I'm going to prove and this is what I'm going to prove it with. The judge can and generally does inquire more about the proofs and tells them if they have met the standard for admissible evidence. They did not. The expert was a professor that wanted to testify as to an overview of a system of corruption, not proof specific to this particular attorney, this case, this panel of judges and they didn't have it and Cohen knew it and said "you don't have enough evidence for me to give you what you want and guess what, we're not setting another separate hearing so you can have a fishing expedition", if you had your proofs, you should have brought them. Not "somehow WW's attorney was...fined", he violated the rules. He made remarks that came under court decorum which are highly frowned upon, every lawyer knows there are limits to how far you can go with your judge and if you persist you may be subject to sanctions...it happens all the time in courtrooms all over America and in keeping with that he apologized to the court, the court accepted his apology and admission he was out of line and the contempt and fine were dropped. Are you talking about the email that was read in open court and one the record Cohen called emotional blackmail??? The one that did not change his decision? I know we are ever unlikely to view Judge Cohen in the same light and I'm ok with that, I hope you are too. :truce:
Click to expand...

Of course we can agree to disagree! It's all good :)
 
Bugbear said:
The basis of early withdrawal on a Trust is taking into the consideration if it is more beneficial now to release the funds. eg. If HM did not get a dime she could die, so obviously the release definitely fits the condition to release.

Cohen may not have the "right" to determine whether there is a bribe or not, hear any other testimony other than that of the Trust Funds release. That may not be within his jurisdiction. He is in Chancery Court, not Law or Civil so his only judgement is to decide if pre-mature release of funds are more beneficial now than at age 30. (You can request trust funds say at age 21, from a maturity date of 30, to go to college, or say for braces)

What is controversial is to say - no, you can not go to that school, no you can not choose your own lawyer, no you can not pick your own orthodontist - the trust will do that for you, then you can have the $. Which is what initially started with Soenardi but was later allowed.
Click to expand...

So if HM had asked for a half million dollars for "medical services" no one had the right to check if that was a legit request? If she was really going to get said medical services? Ask for proof from the provider?

As I've stated over and over, $150,000 is an EXORBINANT amount of money for an attorney in Indonesia. And Ary Soenardi would not be able to provide one piece of proof that this is a going rate, nor that he had charged all other clients this same "retainer fee". He sent them an email under a bogus law firm in which he uses an alias as the owner. He has no office, no "books" to show his fees...nothing. He was given $75,000 without providing any itemized billing. Not sure if his bogus law firm letterhead provided a fake bill for the last payment.

There is income tax in Bali. I wonder what his last return looked like. :rolleyes:

MOO
 
I wonder if things will change a little in the US courts now .... now that HM is likely not going to face the death penalty, as per the prosecution's recommendations.
 
Kamille said:
So if HM had asked for a half million dollars for "medical services" no one had the right to check if that was a legit request? If she was really going to get said medical services? Ask for proof from the provider?
Click to expand...

I wholly agree Kamille, it's very, very frustrating to watch knowing the injustice. Cohen did make, within the Trust rules, that sufficient receipts be provided in order to release $. HM is in Bali, so what is usual and customary charges appears to be the whole of what a person is worth seems. Maybe a sliding scale of sorts? HM did ask for $300k off the bat, and was denied. In figuring what "would" be a standard cost for a Death Penalty case, Cohen allowed the $150k. How that figure seemed customary, I do not know. I do know Soenardi has probably had some fees denied, as he did not get the whole sums that were scheduled.

As for all the "proof of service" flooding in, that $150k was said to be only for HM's Defense. There are other Attorney's submitting for reimbursement for their services aside from the Defense. You have Trustee fee's, Mackoff's fees, about 3 or 4 additional US Attorneys also. I doubt there will be much left when they are all done. HM might be able to move that $ to Stella in a Trust format. So when HM is in her 30's she can hunt Stella down & do the same as SWM did, change the Trust to herself again. (Stella will still be a minor w/ a Custodial Parent by that time) If that is even possible.

I will look up both Bali and the Chancery in the AM, or watch for what transpires tomorrow in both Trials. I think SouthAussie will get the news first though :fence:
 
Well we know that the $150,000 was only supposed to be for HM's "defence" but let's be realistic. How fortunate for TS that even though they have "separate trials" that his lawyer happens to be a known "colleague" of AS and it is the same set of prosecutors and judges for his trial.

The prosecutor didn't even bother to give a reason why the judges should be lenient on TS. Pffft

MOO
 
Kamille said:
Well we know that the $150,000 was only supposed to be for HM's "defence" but let's be realistic. How fortunate for TS that even though they have "separate trials" that his lawyer happens to be a known "colleague" of AS and it is the same set of prosecutors and judges for his trial.

The prosecutor didn't even bother to give a reason why the judges should be lenient on TS. Pffft

MOO
Click to expand...

There has been no news from MSM as to how TS was able to pay for his defence - considering he admitted to the fatal blow which was said to be responsible for Sheila's demise, you would think he would definitely need some serious funds to be able to side step the death penalty, let alone get a reduced sentence which is not the maximum allowed for the killing. He would need as much, if not more, than HM.
(My bold) - but, how fortunate indeed for such amazing co-incidents that the same hands which are snatching at HM's money have never raised a finger of demand for funds publicly from TS.

I wish that there was someone from SvWM's camp there in these last stages in Bali before sentencing to make sure that HM & TS see a representative which connects them back to a mother, a friend, a sibling, a woman who lost her life brutally - It may remind them both that they are there for a reason - that they destroyed a life for their greed.

I hope that between the time of the recommendation and the actual sentencing, that no more money passes hands between the US & Bali - and that funds are frozen during the determination.
HM has confessed to being guilty of the crime as charged.

1st / April/ 2015
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/01/18-15-years-prison-sought-us-pair.html
“What the defendant [Mack] did was sadistic, and to her mother. Other considerations are that she confessed that she was guilty, is still young and has a newborn baby,” prosecutor Eddy Artha Wijaya told the court, presided over by judge Made Suweda.
-----
Eddy said that based on all witness statements and evidence, Mack was guilty of abetting another defendant, Tommy Schaefer, in the murder.
Click to expand...


The law says they both will be facing an extended vacation in Kerobokan - lets see what the money says.
 
Today's pics are starting to be released. Strangely, there are no pics of Tommy today. Maybe he was not in court? Perhaps they are not allowed to listen to the other defence lawyer's tactics/story. Hmmm ......

Makes me wonder if we'll actually hear anything about the proceedings today. Not finding anything yet.


2ihrvrn.jpg

Heather Mack (R) listens to her interpreter during her trial at Denpasar court on Bali island on April 7, 2015.

2rqgc9y.jpg

Heather Mack holds her baby as she arrives at Denpasar court before her trial on Bali island on April 7, 2015.

More at link: http://www.gettyimages.com.au/editorial/heather-mack-pictures
 
Do we know if TS has an appointed attorney or a privately retained one?
 
I can't even find Tommy's lawyer's name right now .. though I know it did change from the initial one because I posted about it way back in the threads somewhere. I don't think it has ever been clear why his lawyer changed. I will have to look for my previous post.

I wonder if Tom Durkin is still his Chicago attorney too?
 
jerseygirl48 said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ves-court-boyfriend-deny-murdered-mother.html
Click to expand...

Thanks! Looks like Tommy was there after all. And it was while someone else was watching the baby outside the courtroom that the blanket 'fell away' and they snapped the pic of the baby. There goes HM's chance of selling exclusive pics ... the Daily Mail snapped its own first exclusive! :giggle:


"The little girl was kept outside Denpasar District Court while her parents appeared briefly, but separately, before a panel of three judges.
Lawyers for both Americans said they rejected the premeditated charges that had been laid upon them."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ves-court-boyfriend-deny-murdered-mother.html
 
SouthAussie said:
I can't even find Tommy's lawyer's name right now .. though I know it did change from the initial one because I posted about it way back in the threads somewhere. I don't think it has ever been clear why his lawyer changed. I will have to look for my previous post.

I wonder if Tom Durkin is still his Chicago attorney too?
Click to expand...

I remember that the first one asked to be removed and from that point on I am not sure what happened other than to say we see he does indeed have counsel.

Ever since we learned what the prosecutors recommended, frankly it should not have been much of a surprise save them seeing Stella as a reason not to go hard on these two because way back when we were 1st learning about Indo criminal procedure, all of those things were mentioned as being in favor of the accused in their system. But I do find it very ironic that both TS and HM from what we have seen thus far in the case, if they had been charged with SWM's murder here in the States, with the same evidence plus the texts would have been a slam dunk for the prosecutors in just about every state...except Florida :facepalm: IMO.
 
gracehatter said:
I remember that the first one asked to be removed and from that point on I am not sure what happened other than to say we see he does indeed have counsel.
Click to expand...

The new one is Iswahyudi Edy (http://www.people.com/article/bali-suitcase-murder-heather-mack-tommy-schaefer-breaks-down-court)

The previous one was Haposan Sihombing ... Tommy 'replaced' him back at the beginning of October.

"Haposan Sihombing, a lawyer who has represented Schaefer, said Friday that he could not comment because Schaefer replaced him a day earlier. He refused to give the name of Schaefer's new lawyer."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779287/Suspect-Indonesia-murder-Slur-sparked-anger.html
 
SouthAussie said:
Today's pics are starting to be released. Strangely, there are no pics of Tommy today. Maybe he was not in court? Perhaps they are not allowed to listen to the other defence lawyer's tactics/story. Hmmm ......

Makes me wonder if we'll actually hear anything about the proceedings today. Not finding anything yet.


2ihrvrn.jpg

Heather Mack (R) listens to her interpreter during her trial at Denpasar court on Bali island on April 7, 2015.

2rqgc9y.jpg

Heather Mack holds her baby as she arrives at Denpasar court before her trial on Bali island on April 7, 2015.

More at link: http://www.gettyimages.com.au/editorial/heather-mack-pictures
Click to expand...

Not wearing her engagement "string" today then? :thinking:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 93 more.
Total: 330 (members: 94, guests: 236)

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
236
Total visitors
330
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,156
Messages
18,250,187
Members
234,549
Latest member
raymehay
Back
Top