GUILTY GA - Rusty Sneiderman shot to death at Dunwoody preschool, 18 Nov 2010 #2

[atthelake]

What I find interesting is that Rusty designated his brother as executor instead of his wife. Having worked for probate attorneys, I was familiar with the basic will template which appointed a spouse as executor; then the will would reflect "In the event I should predecease my wife, I hereby appoint __________ as executor," etc.

Some people appointed Co-executors such as a spouse and a sibling, etc., but this was not usually the case as it opens up possibilities for problems down the road.

I wonder when Rusty made the will, and I am intrigued as to why he did not appoint his wife as executor or even co-executor, but chose instead his brother and father. Does this suggest that there were serious problems in the marriage, or trust issues?

Steve, the lawyer, was executor on BOTH their wills according to the news reports. I see as prudent as executor does not means long term conrtol of estate, just a person to move through probate the legal items. Moo as My will has the best qualified person for LEGAL needs on it, just sayin'

 

[ChickenPants]

Steve, the lawyer, was executor on BOTH their wills according to the news reports. I see as prudent as executor does not means long term conrtol of estate, just a person to move through probate the legal items. Moo as My will has the best qualified person for LEGAL needs on it, just sayin'

Put in your context it does make more sense. However, IIRC, executors do carry authority and weight, since they are legally appointed to do so. That's simple, so why would Andrea object to Steve being the executor if his duty is to just "move through probate"?

Upon reviewing the responsibilities of executor according to this link:

http://estate.findlaw.com/estate-administration/what-does-an-executor-do.html

....I am trying to determine just exactly what is her point? I know there are visitation issues going on but what has that to do with disbursement of the will? I don't see where the law has a provision to change an executor unless that person has been adjudicated incapacitated in some way. Especially since the executor was appointed before this mess. Which is one reason why I'd like to know when the will was prepared.

 

[ChickenPants]

Here's a link that describes under what circumstances an executor can be removed from a will. Apparently it is rather difficult after the testator (Rusty) is deceased.

http://law.freeadvice.com/estate_planning/wills/removing-executor-of-will.htm

One circumstance is "conflict of interest" which may be what they are alleging. However, I do not see where disbursing the assets according to Rusty's wishes (which would be outlined in the will) to his children would be a conflict of interest. It is what Rusty wished that counts - not what Andrea wishes after he is deceased, IMO.

MOO, etc.

 

[atthelake]

Put in your context it does make more sense. However, IIRC, executors do carry authority and weight, since they are legally appointed to do so. That's simple, so why would Andrea object to Steve being the executor if his duty is to just "move through probate"?

Upon reviewing the responsibilities of executor according to this link:

http://estate.findlaw.com/estate-administration/what-does-an-executor-do.html

....I am trying to determine just exactly what is her point? I know there are visitation issues going on but what has that to do with disbursement of the will? I don't see where the law has a provision to change an executor unless that person has been adjudicated incapacitated in some way. Especially since the executor was appointed before this mess. Which is one reason why I'd like to know when the will was prepared.

I too am curious Chick! Just saying that to do so was prudedent, but still saying as I did above, hinky that Andrea is challenging on the face of it especially the day after the visitation was setteled on... see the post below this one, thisnquestions all...I cannot figure out so hopefully SpeakerDave the lawyer can inpt his opinion

As always, excuse typos as on my Nook.

 

[atthelake]

Day um! So many typos with nook and cannot correct! Just seeing my post with errors, please excuse!

 

[ShadyLadySleuth]

Even though it feels a bit like I'm swimming upstream, I still really want to believe that Andrea Sneiderman, although foolish, did not have fore-knowledge that HN was plotting the murder of Rusty. If that is true, then her combative attitude on the witness stand is justified, at least to me. When she testified, HN had already confessed to the murder. He was on trial, yet the Prosecutor was questioning her as if SHE were on trial. She had not been charged with anything at that time. I do believe that she had the affair with HN which placed her in the glare of guilt by association with her lover. IF she were innocent of pre-knowledge of HN's evil plot, she must have felt tremendous guilt and did not want to admit the affair to her and Rusty's family and friends. She found herself in a horrible situation. But she trapped herself by lying about the affair.

HN's lawyer has said she "played HN like a fiddle" in manipulating him into murdering Rusty. Where would she get such precise psychological insight into his mental condition? The experts who testified in his trial could not agree on his exact mental state at the time of the murder. How could an untrained person like AS have the skill and insight into a man with a delusion, as to be a "puppet master" to move him to murder? Andrea may be smart, but is she that smart?

In the end, she may be guilty. But I want to hear ALL the evidence before I say, YES, she knew and plotted along with HN in the death of her husband.

 

[BrownRice]

Even though it feels a bit like I'm swimming upstream, I still really want to believe that Andrea Sneiderman, although foolish, did not have fore-knowledge that HN was plotting the murder of Rusty. If that is true, then her combative attitude on the witness stand is justified, at least to me. When she testified, HN had already confessed to the murder. He was on trial, yet the Prosecutor was questioning her as if SHE were on trial. She had not been charged with anything at that time. I do believe that she had the affair with HN which placed her in the glare of guilt by association with her lover. IF she were innocent of pre-knowledge of HN's evil plot, she must have felt tremendous guilt and did not want to admit the affair to her and Rusty's family and friends. She found herself in a horrible situation. But she trapped herself by lying about the affair.

HN's lawyer has said she "played HN like a fiddle" in manipulating him into murdering Rusty. Where would she get such precise psychological insight into his mental condition? The experts who testified in his trial could not agree on his exact mental state at the time of the murder. How could an untrained person like AS have the skill and insight into a man with a delusion, as to be a "puppet master" to move him to murder? Andrea may be smart, but is she that smart?

In the end, she may be guilty. But I want to hear ALL the evidence before I say, YES, she knew and plotted along with HN in the death of her husband.

I agree 100%.

 

[4Jacy]

Even though it feels a bit like I'm swimming upstream, I still really want to believe that Andrea Sneiderman, although foolish, did not have fore-knowledge that HN was plotting the murder of Rusty. If that is true, then her combative attitude on the witness stand is justified, at least to me. When she testified, HN had already confessed to the murder. He was on trial, yet the Prosecutor was questioning her as if SHE were on trial. She had not been charged with anything at that time. I do believe that she had the affair with HN which placed her in the glare of guilt by association with her lover. IF she were innocent of pre-knowledge of HN's evil plot, she must have felt tremendous guilt and did not want to admit the affair to her and Rusty's family and friends. She found herself in a horrible situation. But she trapped herself by lying about the affair.

HN's lawyer has said she "played HN like a fiddle" in manipulating him into murdering Rusty. Where would she get such precise psychological insight into his mental condition? The experts who testified in his trial could not agree on his exact mental state at the time of the murder. How could an untrained person like AS have the skill and insight into a man with a delusion, as to be a "puppet master" to move him to murder? Andrea may be smart, but is she that smart?

In the end, she may be guilty. But I want to hear ALL the evidence before I say, YES, she knew and plotted along with HN in the death of her husband.

How the he// did she KNOW HE WAS SHOT??!!

 

[atthelake]

How the he// did she KNOW HE WAS SHOT??!!

I would assume the prosecution is all over WSB and 11 alive local stations etc to confirm when the first broadcast was of a "shooting at Dunwoody Prep". If it was broadcast in local tv/radio within about an hour after the shooting...we may see testimony from her mom and her in the future that they heard of it in the media? And then of course Andrea just remembered it was in the death room incorrectly.

Let us see how her parents who were with her testify. Will they be another Anthony family who will be outcast and disgraced for lying for their daughter potentially? I do hope.that the familyndoes not perjure themselves as the Anthonys did. Lying for an accused killer conspirator, I cannot fathom yet Cindy and George did. Is Andreas family the same despicable types that lie to save such as the Anthonys did?

I am thinking they may, but hoping they will not lie and perjure just to throw doubt into the mix. They did change place of worship this past year to Johns Creek Ga vs their old worship place in Dunwoody.......


Hmmmmmm

 

[SpeakerDave]

I would presume that Andrea wants Steve removed as executor because he is not disbursing assets per the will. I would presume Steve is not disbursing assets per the will because he does not want Andrea to have them when there is a cloud over her as to whether she had any unlawful role in Rusty's murder. I don't think it is more complicated than that. The motion to remove Steve had been pending for a while, and the hearing was just last week. Do not read into the timing in relation to the settlement of the visitation matter.

Would one of you do me a great favor? I'm swamped at work right now, but I would really like to view Andrea's testimony and Don Sneiderman's testimony about when Andrea learned rusty had been shot. Can someone find the video clips online for me? If so, please DM me here. I think I can play defense attorney and explain what appears to be a smoking gun. I viewed Citron's and Don's testimony, and I think I found some holes. Thanks in advance for your help!!

 

[atthelake]

Dhttp://www.11alive.com/rss/article/257079/3/Sneiderman-bond-modification-hearing-rescheduledDECATUR, Ga. --A bond modification hearing for Andrea Sneiderman has been moved from Oct. 12 to this week. DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams announced Monday that Sneiderman's hearing will now begin at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday September 20.

According to the amended order, the hearing was rescheduled so Sneiderman can attend a religious service. Another hearing --this one on Wednesday afternoon --has been scheduled, where the state has to show why her motion to dismiss the secondary case against the Bank of New York Mellon should not be granted. Sneiderman's assets at Bank of New York Mellon have been frozen in conjunction with the legal action against her.

 

[atthelake]

I would presume that Andrea wants Steve removed as executor because he is not disbursing assets per the will. I would presume Steve is not disbursing assets per the will because he does not want Andrea to have them when there is a cloud over her as to whether she had any unlawful role in Rusty's murder. I don't think it is more complicated than that. The motion to remove Steve had been pending for a while, and the hearing was just last week. Do not read into the timing in relation to the settlement of the visitation matter.

Would one of you do me a great favor? I'm swamped at work right now, but I would really like to view Andrea's testimony and Don Sneiderman's testimony about when Andrea learned rusty had been shot. Can someone find the video clips online for me? If so, please DM me here. I think I can play defense attorney and explain what appears to be a smoking gun. I viewed Citron's and Don's testimony, and I think I found some holes. Thanks in advance for your help!!

If you google "andrea sneiderman testimony video" you get lots of hits, same with Don

Perhaps a member here has it that they can take the time to copy and upload from their tivo or download of the trial?


DECATUR, Ga. (WXIA) --Testimony in the Hemy Neuman murder trial condradicted Andrea Sneiderman's account of how she responded after her husband was killed --potentially calling into question whether she knew more about his death than she testified. The morning her husband Rusty was shot to death outside their children's Dunwoody daycare, Andrea Sneiderman got a frantic phone call from the facility. Weeks later, police arrested Hemy Neuman, Sneiderman's boss and a man with whom she'd developed a personal relationship. Tuesday, as the trial opened, Sneiderman described the frantic phone call. "They didn't really tell me. And I screamed into the phone asking what was going on. They just said you need to come here," Mrs. Sneiderman testified on the opening day of the trial. Sneiderman said she was kept in the dark about what had actually happened to her husband --that he'd been shot to death --until she got to the hospital much later.


Mrs. Sneiderman testified that she made several phone calls during her drive to the crime scene. One of them was to Rusty Sneiderman's father, Don. "You said what to Don Sneiderman?" Chief Assistant District Attorney Don Geary asked Mrs. Sneiderman Tuesday. "I said 'Something has happened to Rusty. I have no idea what,'" she answered under oath. Thursday, Don Sneiderman told jurors that Andrea Sneiderman knew details she denied knowing when she testified Tuesday. "Andrea called us," he said. "And she called and said Rusty had been shot. She was so so sorry." The contradiction raises the question --how did Andrea Sneiderman know her husband had been shot if, as she said, nobody had told her? "d"She was going to Dunwoody Prep to find out what happened," Don Sneiderman said of the timing of the phone calls. "And are you sure she told you Rusty had been shot?" District Attorney Robert James asked. "Yes, sir," Mr. Sneiderman answered. But Andrea Sneiderman was emphatic during her testimony Tuesday. Geary asked her: "At the time you called Don Sneiderman, did you know what had happened to Rusty?" "No," Mrs. Sneiderman answered. "I didn't know what happened to Rusty until I got to the emergency room. No one told me what happened to Rusty."

 

[atthelake]

http://m.cbsatlanta.com/w/main/story/73361581/

ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) - Andrea Sneiderman has requested two hearings to have the courts release her bank funds and to allow her to attend church Sunday.

Sneiderman's husband, Rusty, was shot and killed outside of a Dunwoody daycare.
Andrea's boss, Hemy Neuman, was convicted in his murder, but a grand jury indicted Andrea in August on charges of murder, attempted murder, racketeering, insurance fraud, perjury and making false statements.

The hearings will take place on Wednesday and Thursday at 1:30 p.m. and her next arraignment hearing will be in October.

 

[ChickenPants]

Even though it feels a bit like I'm swimming upstream, I still really want to believe that Andrea Sneiderman, although foolish, did not have fore-knowledge that HN was plotting the murder of Rusty. If that is true, then her combative attitude on the witness stand is justified, at least to me. When she testified, HN had already confessed to the murder. He was on trial, yet the Prosecutor was questioning her as if SHE were on trial. She had not been charged with anything at that time. I do believe that she had the affair with HN which placed her in the glare of guilt by association with her lover. IF she were innocent of pre-knowledge of HN's evil plot, she must have felt tremendous guilt and did not want to admit the affair to her and Rusty's family and friends. She found herself in a horrible situation. But she trapped herself by lying about the affair.

HN's lawyer has said she "played HN like a fiddle" in manipulating him into murdering Rusty. Where would she get such precise psychological insight into his mental condition? The experts who testified in his trial could not agree on his exact mental state at the time of the murder. How could an untrained person like AS have the skill and insight into a man with a delusion, as to be a "puppet master" to move him to murder? Andrea may be smart, but is she that smart?

In the end, she may be guilty. But I want to hear ALL the evidence before I say, YES, she knew and plotted along with HN in the death of her husband.

I agree with you on so many points here, and I never like to rush to judgment. IMO sometimes in trials what is NOT said, things attorneys fight to keep out, etc., catches my attention as much or as more as the testimonies or the attorneys' arguments.

There has been so much bizarre behavior on the part of Andrea and she has been so defensive; understandable to an extent if a person feels they are being railroaded, but NOT in the context of the HN trial. She seems to have had a total disconnect with "widowhood" in so many ways.

It makes sense to me that a woman would not want the world to know she had an affair with a man who later turned out to be her husband's killer. But let's face it, when the killer of the husband you supposedly loved goes on trial and you are called as a witness would you not try to be humble and cooperative, especially to the prosecutor? Andrea's performance was all about Andrea, as if she was a victim, not her husband being dead most likely as a result of something she started...if she didn't start it, she participated...if she participated who knows how out of control it got....IMO she is a manipulator and this is one time that backfired on her.

I think her complicity in the murder is a complicated issue that it will be difficult to prove, legally. It fits the standard of that often-repeated maxim that for evil to prevail all that's necessary is for ... people to do nothing. Obviously she had remedies on the job if she thought she was being sexually harassed or "stalked" in a company that had policies and procedures prohibiting inter-office romances, her friend testified that Andrea was flattered and I doubt that any of the other employees in Andrea's department had their boss chasing them around the country and sharing rooms/beds with them. The simple fact is that Andrea herself knew their relationship was inappropriate but she enjoyed the attention. If there existed moments when she had an inkling that this rose to the level of obsession, then she had no business continuing to lead him on. It was selfish, pure and simple.

It will be interesting to see what specific evidence the DA has, that we have not yet seen, that has given them the confidence to bring her to trial and win.

 

[SpeakerDave]

It will be interesting to see what specific evidence the DA has, that we have not yet seen, that has given them the confidence to bring her to trial and win.

Unless the DA has more, I think it is unlikely he will get a murder conviction.

 

[Shelby1]

Unless the DA has more, I think it is unlikely he will get a murder conviction.

No offense, but I hope you're wrong. lease:

 

[SpeakerDave]

The motion to unfreeze $2 million will be heard tomorrow at either 9:00 am or 1:30 pm EDT (the docket shows conflicting times).

I've litigated against Lewis Levinson, the attorney who will likely argue this motion for Andrea. He's colorful.

Hopefully local Atlanta media will stream the hearing live. I'll try to post links to live stream here - but keep an eye on my twitter acct. @SpeakerDave, b/c that's sometimes the only place I have time to post.

 

[SpeakerDave]

No offense, but I hope you're wrong. lease:

I'm not offended, but I'm wondering why you would want someone convicted of murder if the evidence isn't there?

I know someone started a list in this thread, but I would be thrilled if everyone would post the Top 5 (or more) pieces of evidence you think constitute the "smoking gun" of Andrea's guilt of murder. Maybe I can play devil's advocate and try to show that evidence isn't as strong as you think.

You need not point to the contradictory testimony about when Andrea called people and told them Rusty had been shot and killed. I'm in the middle of a blog post about that. But what else is strong enough to show she had Hemy kill Rusty?

 

[atthelake]

I'm not offended, but I'm wondering why you would want someone convicted of murder if the evidence isn't there?

<respectfully snipped>

You need not point to the contradictory testimony about when Andrea called people and told them Rusty had been shot and killed. I'm in the middle of a blog post about that. But what else is strong enough to show she had Hemy kill Rusty?

Speakerdave, I have not seen anyone here state that "she had Hemy " kill Rusty, and that is what is so convoluted morally and much moreso legally for all of us. And until trial we will not know a lot of what is for consideration in this case.

. It is not like the Bob Bashara case where he did hire to "have some killed". It just that they did "the dance" and that was the result from what has been attested to in court. I myself hope that the DA has more than what we have seen to be bringing the charges - and perhaps that is what the other poster was saying?

If the DA gives no more than what we have seen so far, well, with just the knowing of he had been shot "too soon" may be explained in a defense saying it was on the radio and she found out that way orfrom an excited utterance or bystander comment from someone at the daycare (but that conflicts with Don Sneidermans statement that her call was on the way to the daycae?

I too like Chick want to await the trial, but it is all indeed hinky, but the law is the law and I look forward for having evidence put forth at trial.

 

[atthelake]

Speakerdave, I understand that your Atlanta group is meeting this Thursday in Dunwoody at a pub to discuss this case. I know there are at least seven of us :websleuther: in the greater Atlanta metro area that might want to attend the 6-9 meeting. Can you post here if you want some of us to join you?

I do not do twitter, so perhaps someone else can repost any of your tweets here. (Imho we are not supposed to do tweets from non-msm, but since you are an approved lawyer here at WS, I do not think that would be an issue.)