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

[FigTree]

In part 3 of the videos from Crime Watch Network at 1min 57 sec HM is asked about her partying and relationships in the jail - to which HM asks a question back "How can I party in a jail - sometimes I listen to music, but I don't spend my days partying, I spend my days taking care of my daughter" ...

We know this is not true -
Media Reports & posted videos from that time until now show HM partying.
The most recent being when Stella was handed over to Osher ...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ay-lesbian-lover-baby-left.html#ixzz4c0QAlGtH

The morning after she was pictured saying a tearful farewell to Stella on Friday afternoon, however, Mack was singing and dancing in the prison,
where illicit drink and drugs are widely available despite a recent security crackdown.
-----
'We all helped look after her and Stella often spent more time eating and playing with other prisoners than she did with her own mother,' said another inmate.

:facepalm:

Yes it is. And as was noted by the reporter, who spent an hour talking with HM off the record before the recorded interview that they showed parts of, HM is a master manipulator who had him fooled at times. And, as we discussed back when this first came out, it is very interesting how she just hung up from and broke off all contact with this reporter when she realized that he had the text message information from the FBI reports and was going to question her about it. That's just something that she cannot argue and lie her way out of and she knows it.

I have no reason to believe HM about anything she says either,
and the way she cut the reporter off is a common tactic when the control isn't going the manipulators way.

 

[IslandLover]

Is this the person you were talking about - is this Osher on the video Kamille?

It certainly looks like her. She has blond hair in that still from the video but it is now back to natural dark brown in the most recent photos.

 

[Kamille]

It certainly looks like her. She has blond hair in that still from the video but it is now back to natural dark brown in the most recent photos.

Yes...that is definitely her.

 

[SouthAussie]

Is this the person you were talking about - is this Osher on the video Kamille?

If you saw her FB page ... she is blonde in every picture. And acting like a 15 year old with her tongue hanging out like the kids do, until they grow up and know how unclassy that looks.

Despite her appearance of late, her FB page - with fairly recent pics - makes me wonder how mature she is. How capable she is of doing the right thing for Stella. How much she is enchanted by western ways - with Heather perhaps being the westerner that she may be closest to right now.

Having said that, her sons look happy and healthy, eating big plates of food. And Stella will be NOT-in-Kerobokan, and in a more normal family environment, with respectable foster grandparents to help watch over her, and a pleasant family home to live in - instead of a hot, humid, drug-riddled, sometimes-violent prison, with a loopy conniving mother.

 

[SouthAussie]

I do think we need to remember that the culture is very different from any of ours in Bali. They are very relaxed there. Kind, gentle, and compassionate people. They do not generally like violence. Are very anti-drugs. They dote on their children, and smile and laugh a lot. Very poor time-keepers. They bargain and make mutual arrangements a lot.

Regular Bali is not like Kerobokan. That is a horrible hellhole, like all other prisons that contain the worst of the worst kind of people. Stella should never have been allowed to remain there. But the Balinese think a mother is very important in a young child's life, to nuture and love them. So I sort of understand their 2-year rule, even though I do not agree with it ... at all.

They would have no typical concept of the depth of crazy and depraved and manipulation that a 'mother' like Heather is.

The other western women that have been in Kerobokan have mostly been pretty normal people, who are devastated at being put in there, and cannot adapt to their surroundings - despite having committed a big wrong in the Balinese law's eyes.

 

[IslandLover]

If you saw her FB page ... she is blonde in every picture. And acting like a 15 year old with her tongue hanging out like the kids do, until they grow up and know how unclassy that looks.

Despite her appearance of late, her FB page - with fairly recent pics - makes me wonder how mature she is. How capable she is of doing the right thing for Stella. How much she is enchanted by western ways - with Heather perhaps being the westerner that she may be closest to right now.

Having said that, her sons look happy and healthy, eating big plates of food. And Stella will be NOT-in-Kerobokan, and in a more normal family environment, with respectable foster grandparents to help watch over her, and a pleasant family home to live in - instead of a hot, humid, drug-riddled, sometimes-violent prison, with a loopy conniving mother.

Do you have a link to her facebook page, SouthAussie? I cannot find it doing a normal search.

 

[Kakidoll]

WOW. After looking at her FB and the pics of her from picking up Stella, its like 2 different people. She was either is putting up a 'motherly' front to get custody or something changed very recently. Her FB tells a whole other side.... one that would look like the type to hang out with HM and party with her. How old is she again?

 

[SouthAussie]

WOW. After looking at her FB and the pics of her from picking up Stella, its like 2 different people. She was either is putting up a 'motherly' front to get custody or something changed very recently. Her FB tells a whole other side.... one that would look like the type to hang out with HM and party with her. How old is she again?

Can't find how old she is ... only that her birthday is 13th October, her FB has been active from 2011-2017, and she went to Irrawang High School (in NSW, Australia). No university or other adult education.

My guess is she'd be in her 20s.

 

[Kamille]

Can't find how old she is ... only that her birthday is 13th October, her FB has been active from 2011-2017, and she went to Irrawang High School (in NSW, Australia). No university or other adult education.

My guess is she'd be in her 20s.

She was born October 13, 1983 in Maitland, Australia as per the custody documents.

 

[Kakidoll]

She was born October 13, 1983 in Maitland, Australia as per the custody documents.[/QUOTE


Thank you. She seems very immature on FB for a 34 year old..

 

[FigTree]

I wonder why Fabia wasn't there at the hand over.
Is is still representing Stella?

From the MSM reports I gather the reason Stella wasnt able to go to the US was because HM did not approve - I read it needs both parents to approve this.
So it would not have mattered that Kia Walker (grandmother) tried to get Stella back to the States and with her - HM did not approve it, and thats what it needed,
both parents to approve Stella going back.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...to-Gain-Custody-of-2-Year-Old--416185503.html


So with the comment:
Schaefer's mother Kia Walker failed in an application to a Chicago court to be Stella's legal guardian and raise her granddaughter in the US.
-----
Cook County Circuit Judge Susan Kennedy Sullivan said Tuesday Heather Mack and Tommy Schaefer must give written consent before a decision on guardianship is made.
-----
..... Mack’s parental rights have not been terminated and that Mack herself made the agreement to transfer the child.
-----
'I'm so relieved the case was thrown out,' Mack told a fellow prisoner who spoke exclusively to MailOnline.
-----
And as the girl was taken through the prison to her new guardian, Schaefer made it clear he was furious at the outcome.
'This is wrong! Stella doesn't belong here in Bali - she should be with my mother in America,' he shouted. 'I'm American, Heather is American and Stella is American.
Why is she being allowed to stay in Bali?'

_____________________________


How is HM getting money to support herself over there?

(Kamille noted)
Id like to know (too) if the media are paying for the 'Exclusives' they keep getting form HM/Favia/Stella/Osha

The Daily Mail (mailonline) are mostly the exclusive media outlet with which the information comes through for world wide coverage.

- - there maybe something in that -
HM cant profit from the crime, but she could profit from exclusive photos of her daughter.
I notice that the media have made Stella the focus of much of the 'exclusives'

Early in the case - Favia was photographed exclusively with the ultrasound photos and gave an interview when the YOUCARE fundraiser went up for Stella
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mother-faces-death-penalty.html#ixzz3Xrs50hG3
Favia - who has been photographed exclusively by MailOnline examining an ultrasound image of the unborn baby - has been looking at the child's immediate future after its birth.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/li...y/news-story/30b6a919feb9be9ecf5a671b1c71afca
Ms Suartama would not comment to News Corp Australia ahead of today’s handover.

Was it because the Daily Mail and People got the exclusives? These are the only Exclusives around either - there has been at least 36 that I can count.
Was it why Stella (from the time she was born) keeps getting a cloth thrown over her face every time the media turn up?
Both HM & Oshar do this to Stella - for picture rights? Only for certain photographers?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...her-mack-guardianship-met-20170210-story.html
The question of Stella's guardianship comes amid an ongoing legal dispute over Mack's $1.56 million trust in Chicago.
Mack's maternal uncle, the trustee, has argued that Mack should not be permitted to profit financially from her crime under Illinois' slayer statute,
which states that a person who unjustifiably causes the death of another person cannot receive property as a result of that death.


Just wondering WHY this has turned out the way it has - with Stella.
Money?
Does HM have to declare earnings - I mean from reputable sources like the tabloids?
Can she receive money, or does money go into other accounts?

 

[Kamille]

In the US, she would not be able to profit from any publicity about her crime. No interviews, books, movie deals etc. It would fall under the Illinois version of the "Son of Sam law". Not sure if exclusive interviews and stories about Stella would be included in that. Although if not for her crime, there would be no story about Stella that media would pay money to get. So I guess it would?

But it appears that Indonesia plays by their own rules and does not adhere to much of what the "western" world is doing with regards to legal issues. And the rules and laws seem to be different for everyone depending on what connections you can make. So I suppose she can do anything she wants over there without repercussion because she's made friends in all the right places. No wonder she wants to stay there.

I wonder if the FBI are keeping a running tally of all the US laws she's breaking and whether any of them can be applied if and when she is returned to the US?

MOO

ETA: It appears that a lot of US states are dealing with legal arguments about Son of Sam laws being considered unconstitutional and I think some have amended their laws so she might have even been able to profit in Illinois too. The girl is teflon.

 

[Cyberburn]

I've been looking at Oshar's Facebook. She spends so much time at the Delish Salon and Bar. Too bad the judge didn't consider that it appears that the foster mother spends a lot of time getting two hour massages, getting her hair done, as well as her nails and eyelashes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[IslandLover]

I've been looking at Oshar's Facebook. She spends so much time at the Delish Salon and Bar. Too bad the judge didn't consider that it appears that the foster mother spends a lot of time getting two hour massages, getting her hair done, as well as her nails and eyelashes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have a hard time believing she is 34 with two children (the eldest is 11). Her facebook tells a different story of someone who comes across as very immature and attention-seeking. I now question her motives for befriending Heather Mack and taking on Stella.

 

[Orange Tabby]

In the US, she would not be able to profit from any publicity about her crime. No interviews, books, movie deals etc. It would fall under the Illinois version of the "Son of Sam law". Not sure if exclusive interviews and stories about Stella would be included in that. Although if not for her crime, there would be no story about Stella that media would pay money to get. So I guess it would?

But it appears that Indonesia plays by their own rules and does not adhere to much of what the "western" world is doing with regards to legal issues. And the rules and laws seem to be different for everyone depending on what connections you can make. So I suppose she can do anything she wants over there without repercussion because she's made friends in all the right places. No wonder she wants to stay there.

I wonder if the FBI are keeping a running tally of all the US laws she's breaking and whether any of them can be applied if and when she is returned to the US?

MOO

ETA: It appears that a lot of US states are dealing with legal arguments about Son of Sam laws being considered unconstitutional and I think some have amended their laws so she might have even been able to profit in Illinois too. The girl is teflon.

What's relevant is not where Heather is but where the publication outlets are. "People" is in the U.S. The "Mail" is in the U.K (although it may also have offices in the U.S). Those publications are governed by the laws of the country in which they are incorporated or where they do business.

I can't see how Illinois law is relevant, because surely a hypothetical case arising out of alleged violations of the law would be multi-jurisdictional (e.g. Indonesia - New York, if "People" has broken the law) and would be decided in U.S. Federal court, not Illinois state court. Or if not that, then New York law would govern, as that's where "People" is headquartered. Illinois has nothing to do with it.

There have been changes to some "Son of Sam" laws as the result of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in "Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board" (a case concerning a book about mafioso William Hill which later served as the basis for the film "Goodfellas") but that was way back in 1991--over a quarter of a century ago--so any legislation even just a few years older than that has been written to withstand scrutiny under the terms of that ruling. And I don't know of any cases since then which have made it to the Supreme Court, let alone which had rulings finding any current law Unconstitutional.

Based on only a very quick check, the current federal law appears to date from 2000, and like New York law, has been updated since "Simon & Schuster." See 18 USCS § 3681.

 

[Kamille]

What's relevant is not where Heather is but where the publication outlets are. "People" is in the U.S. The "Mail" is in the U.K (although it may also have offices in the U.S). Those publications are governed by the laws of the country in which they are incorporated or where they do business.

I can't see how Illinois law is relevant, because surely a hypothetical case arising out of alleged violations of the law would be multi-jurisdictional (e.g. Indonesia - New York, if "People" has broken the law) and would be decided in U.S. Federal court, not Illinois state court. Or if not that, then New York law would govern, as that's where "People" is headquartered. Illinois has nothing to do with it.

There have been changes to some "Son of Sam" laws as the result of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in "Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board" (a case concerning a book about mafioso William Hill which later served as the basis for the film "Goodfellas") but that was way back in 1991--over a quarter of a century ago--so any legislation even just a few years older than that has been written to withstand scrutiny under the terms of that ruling. And I don't know of any cases since then which have made it to the Supreme Court, let alone which had rulings finding any current law Unconstitutional.

Based on only a very quick check, the current federal law appears to date from 2000, and like New York law, has been updated since "Simon & Schuster." See 18 USCS § 3681.

Yes, the Illinois reference was a hypothetical of what Son of Sam law would apply if HM had committed this murder in Chicago and not in Indonesia.

So you're saying that if these publications are paying HM, perhaps via her friend OS, for exclusive pictures and interviews, or paying OS direct for pictures and interviews that it is the publication that is breaking the laws regarding profiting off of the crime of their respective countries and not HM, the convicted felon or OS, the apparent benefactor of HM?

 

[Orange Tabby]

Anyone who pays for material violating Son of Sam laws can be subpoenaed in a legal proceeding.

Anyone who wants to pay a murderer (or associates like Oshar of the Eyelashes) for their story, in some jurisdictions, must put the funds in an escrow account, or pay it to some state body.

Anyone who suggests that Heather's appearance on "Crime Watch Daily" or in "People", to take only two examples, is proof that she was paid by them also assumes that these media outlets are willing to take the huge negative publicity hit if a legal action ensues.

Heather has no base of support outside of a handful of folk in Bali and just maybe a few remaining pals from the old days in Chicago.

Media outlets cover Heather because the public loves to hate her. She's like Casey Anthony. Or Oscar Pistorious. Or Charles Manson.

Or like O.J. Simpson before he was put in prison in Nevada. (That case is a bit different because Simpson did have a significant amount of support, even if it was far, far less than a majority.)

Everyone knows they are all guilty, but they can't look away when there is news about them. The public loves new info to confirm their hatred.

That's why publications cover them. That's why Heather gets in the news. People hate her.

But Heather is different from my other examples. Her shelf life has been much shorter. She's not a big draw any more.

I think she only gets coverage when it's easy for "People" (or others) to do it. And easy means low cost. Realistically at no cost to them, beyond the writing of the story.

Why would "People" risk their reputation with readers by paying for photos from a notorious and unrepentant murderer? Do you really believe she is worth that to them?

I don't.

And if William Wiese disagreed with me, he could file a case in New York tomorrow and subpoena "People" with no problem. It's not as if he likes, believes, or trusts Heather.

 

[SouthAussie]

Poor little Stella really has no rights at all, does she?

No rights for her picture to be kept out of media publications.
No rights to be brought up in her country of nationality with a family who represents the same culture as her birth culture.
No rights to have spent her first two years in a safe, secure, drug free environment.
No rights to her inheritance without everyone else sticking their paws in and taking a huge slice.
No rights to protection by the US government.

 

[Kamille]

In October of 2016 TS claimed that HM was "profiting as much as she can". He likely knows, or at least knew up until their split, what she was able to do to manipulate cash flow for herself and obviously by Oct of 2016 he was mad about it because he was no longer benefiting from whatever she was getting.

The Crime Watch Daily interview and the "exclusive pictures" that ME was providing to the Chicago Tribune, along with HM's direct line to one of their reporters were a couple of examples of ways in which HM, via OS and ME was providing "exclusive" information to the US media prior to TS making that claim. Neither of those outlets painted her in a very good light so what was her incentive for doing that?

Crime Watch Daily actually paid for their reporter and at least one camera person to go to Bali because they were led to believe that they could get into the prison and interview her in person. When they got there, that didn't happen and the reporter ended up talking to her on Skype anyway...which he could have done from the US...so they wasted money sending a reporter and camera person over there. But we do know that they met with OS and filmed her. How would they know who she was unless HM told them to contact her?

In August of 2016, a tv producer at Paramount Studios in LA, who was working for the Dr Phil show, posted on HM's IG asking her to direct message her to set up a big interview. Don't recall seeing a big interview of HM on Dr Phil so perhaps they weren't willing to take a risk and pay her? And I doubt with her "attitude" she would have done it for no pay.

People has branched out into the "true crime news" business. They are no longer just a celebrity type magazine, they are a full blown online tabloid like the Daily Mail. I cannot think of any reason OS would have to provide them with an interview and exclusive pictures of herself and Stella, including one of Stella sitting on a bed in her home, without some financial incentive.

Do I think these online tabloid magazines and news programs would be willing to risk their reputations and legal action, yes I do, because it is so very rare that anyone actually initiates legal action, especially in this case where the victim has few immediate relatives and the murderer may still end up inheriting the trust. But that is just my opinion. And negative publicity for The Daily Mail and People.com is pretty much the norm these days.

Do I think WW would bother to pursue it? No I don't, and likely neither do the tabloids, because they know WW is not revengeful towards his niece, he just wants to do the right thing by his sister with regards to the trust. And as far as People is concerned, I hope they noticed the minute number of people who even bothered to comment on the article and that it proves to them that she is not worth the risk and that's the last "exclusive" they bother with.

As always this is just my opinion and I have no direct knowledge if HM is actually making any money from any media outlet. I'd actually like to see WW file a case in New York and subpoena People to see if they did pay for those pictures. But even if they did, they would have paid OS. So how would that work out knowing that OS has been supporting HM?

MOO

 

[Orange Tabby]

Avid followers of this case know that two years ago developments were reported in newspapers around the world.

Stella's handover from Heather to Oshar Putu Melody Suartama was covered by only a handful.

Heather Mack is no longer a big story.

I looked at the Crime Watch Daily videos on YouTube yesterday. The first one, after six months, had only 19,000+ views. A good kitty-cat vid gets that in less than a day. (Praise be to tabbies.)

I live in a neighborhood populated by more than 19,000 people, and we are just a tiny dot on the American map.

Crime Watch Daily is not a big money production. It relies in part on local stations offering local crime content, which is almost the definition of low budget.

And Crime Watch Daily has a viewership which is very strongly opposed to criminals. In no case do they ever want to be linked to paying them.

I've pointed out that the Daily Mail often relies on re-writing the stories of other outlets. I do assume they pay someone in Bali to visit the prison from time to time, and the result is often true oddity.

In the space of less than a week the Mail reported:

--Tommy Schaefer attacked someone with an iron bar and was put in solitary confinement.

--Tommy was himself attacked by 8 Western prisoners (because of Heather) and put in solitary to hide his wounds.

--Tommy tried to attack someone with an iron bar.

This is madness. It is not the work of a serious newspaper and it shows how opportunistic the Daily Fail is. They will tell a pro-Tommy story when someone pitches it and a pro-Heather story when it comes its way. They don't care if they contradict themselves.

They don't need to pay, because both sides keep feeding them junk and they just keep publishing it.

Drawing conclusions based on the Daily Mail is a fool's errand.

"People" makes its money off very famous celebrities. That's where the money is.

They have a 53-47 formula (53 percent celebrities and 47 percent other folk).

Heather is not a celebrity, and she only gets in when there's something truly new and when there's nothing else to crowd her out.

That's not proof that anyone has been paid. It's only an indication that a sociopath like Heather thinks stories in "People" will help her. Or that maybe she just likes the attention and pretends that she doesn't know that "People" readers despise her.

They despise her. The entire world despises her. It's not just us. And "People" knows this.

I believe that "People" expects photos no one else has published. And I would guess that's the same for stories they publish of good people doing noble things, or decent families overcoming tremendous hardship. (All part of the 47 percent.) This means Heather has to give them something no one else has.

It doesn't prove that "People" pays the noble or pays the decent or pays Heather.

I can't rule out the possibility of payment, but if it exists at all (and I doubt this very much) I'm sure it is very tiny cash outlays to people who are not Heather or Tommy and based on the "fact" that these two don't benefit.

Oshar's FB page, so ably analysed by people here (I've learned a lot from recent posts) establishes her own unique sort of narcissism and childish self-absorption. Why wouldn't she participate for free in these media exercises merely for the fame of it?

I am not even remotely convinced that Heather's picture in some media outlet is suddenly and unequivocally proof that she has been paid for same. Remember, less than a month ago (similarly with no evidence) the theory was that Heather had been getting money for years from Sheila's trust.

The rich and privileged Oshar explains the money. She has admitted publicly to such funding. (Plus other charitable sources have been reported.)

There is no need to assume other funding which is entirely unproven.

There is no need to assume that media outlets like "People" would risk exposure of paying a notorious and universally despised murderer like Heather Mack because there's always the chance that someone like William Wiese will advance a Son of Sam lawsuit.