Sheri Coleman, sons Garett and Gavin murdered 5-5-09, Columbia, IL. Pt9

[Wrinkles]

Hello Fairy1,

Good to see you :blowkiss:

I've been thinking about the letters from prisoners LE found in the house....

Obviously, it could have been part of CC's job to read such letters to JM and discern if anything was really a viable threat. Then again, he could have been studying them in an effort to find a suitable scapegoat.

I'm confident LE is on top of this.....

I've wondered if within shopping for a scapegoat, CC also shopped for language to match one of the inmate letters. I think that mighta been fairly dumb, as even if the inmate were later released (and CC knew it), they might be incarcerated again OR have an alibi on the day of the murder.

 

[Wrinkles]

Hiya Kimster,

I was thinking more along the lines of grasping at straws than a crap shoot. I don't think they really care who is the judge, they just want to get that "feeling" of "everyone has been unfair to my client" out there from the get-go. That's just one theory I have about why they did this!

Perhaps I am not quite understanding your thinking... I'm wondering if everyone in a jury pool might be wondering the same thing we are, i.e. Why would they be changing judges, all that has happened is a 2 hour prelim and hearing of probably cause. Surely the judge could not have shown much unfairness in this length of time?

Can you help me understand your thinking a little better?

 

[Wrinkles]

Hello DaisyF,

If it is a rumor, maybe the Coleman family started it to get the ball rolling so to speak.

If it is not a rumor, maybe the Coleman family "donated" to the fund for the same reason.

DD, CC's best friend... but he's not a swindler like the Coleman's so I don't know if he would have that kind of money laying around.

I can't think of any reason why someone who is not related to CC would be motivated to help CC's defense. I can see why the Coleman's would be motivated to make a pathetic attempt to show the public that they are not the only one's who strongly support CC.

Thinking alongside you... I'm wondering how much retainer the attorneys wanted at first. They might have said, "We need this chunk to begin, but ultimately, this defense could cost up to a million."

Now then... I do think that there are people who might be older (70s, 80s), who have saved for a long long time and who might be in RC's church that might feel very close to their pastor, and thus his son -- after all, at first there was not so much evidence out there. This older person might have thought just how awful it was that Sheri and the children were lost, bought into Chris being a grieving father who was wronged by the ninja, and they had a heart for the grieving grandparents (their pastor and his wife.) They could have thought to themselves, "I'll be dead soon and I was going to give my estate to the church (or some of it to the pastor), why not give some of it now." They might have thought, "Well I've known Chris since he was a boy, surely he couldn't have done this."

On the other hand... Why give a full $250,000 right off the bat, UNLESS the defense attorney said "We need 250K retainer in order to take this"? But...mightn't a person in this frame of mind (thinking that CC was innocent and wanting to help) hold some type of fantasy that LE would find the real perp soon and CC would be released, i.e. the defense costs might not get to $250K. Why wouldn't they say, "I'll chip in, you just let me know if you need more." Seems that a retiree who saved their whole life to manage through old age might be a little more conservative in their gift (at least at first), unless they were really really loaded (which can happen after 70 years of saving.)

Which leads to the question... What might the retainer have been? The defense attorney was hired right off the bat (May 5th, day of murders.) With nothing more than the client saying, "They interviewed me for X hours, I'm scared" -- would an attorney have said, "Okay, 10K retainer to start today, we'll talk more in the next weeks." The viewing and the funeral for Sheri and the children was on the 8th and 9th of May (if I recall correctly.) If this is when funds were being solicited, why would anyone intimate a need for as much as 250K right away...UNLESS the attorney saw the mac truck coming on the first day (with abrasions and scratches on the forearm, timing of CC leaving the house and returning, etc.) Unless they were fairly clear right away what was going to be happening and they didn't even want to touch the case without the 250K upfront. Now, I find that a bit hard to believe, but maybe I'm naive. Attorney's aren't cheap, but that seems like a WHOLE lot to be needed right away.

As far as it being a rumor started to get the ball rolling, if I heard there was already $250K given to a defense fund that early in the game, I think I would say, "Well that is a good start, you let me know down the road if there are any needs." On the other hand, we don't know when the $250K was first mentioned (rumor or otherwise.)

It will be very interesting to find out what Sheri's family learns about who contributed to, or how much was contributed to a defense fund, and through whom that money was gifted (who were the checks written to.)

Thanks for hopping on the questions Daisy

 

[who knew?]

Regarding the Margulis boys...
Have they tried cases like this before? I haven't researched them yet so really don't know much about them. A $250,000 retainer fee sounds awfully high to me, too - especially if it was for an innocent client since MCS or LE would have, in their on-going investigation, found other POI's. At that point, if their investigation still led to CC, I could see M&M saying they needed more cash up front. But, on day one, when no evidence was back from labs, etc., I wouldn't think they would look at this as a long case requiring lots of cash. So............that leads me to think they knew the condition of the bodies and the fact CC placed himself in the home at TOD, so they KNEW CC was going to be the only POI.

I doubt CC has admitted anything to anyone, possibly including himself - and that makes me wonder if he could "pass" a lie detector test. I have a feeling he doesn't have the same responses most people would have - he seems so empty inside. JMO. Don't attack me here, people - this is just my opinion!!!

 

[Kimster]

Hiya Kimster,



Perhaps I am not quite understanding your thinking... I'm wondering if everyone in a jury pool might be wondering the same thing we are, i.e. Why would they be changing judges, all that has happened is a 2 hour prelim and hearing of probably cause. Surely the judge could not have shown much unfairness in this length of time?

Can you help me understand your thinking a little better?

Sure! In my wild theory, and it IS wild for the time being, the defense is setting up a story that everyone involved in the beginning stages were untrustworthy...that they were working together to set up CC and thus they needed to "wipe the slate clean" right away.

Am I watching too much Law and Order? Yeah, prolly. ha ha!!! :crazy:

 

[Lindadanette]

Hello DaisyF,



Thinking alongside you... I'm wondering how much retainer the attorneys wanted at first. They might have said, "We need this chunk to begin, but ultimately, this defense could cost up to a million."

Now then... I do think that there are people who might be older (70s, 80s), who have saved for a long long time and who might be in RC's church that might feel very close to their pastor, and thus his son -- after all, at first there was not so much evidence out there. This older person might have thought just how awful it was that Sheri and the children were lost, bought into Chris being a grieving father who was wronged by the ninja, and they had a heart for the grieving grandparents (their pastor and his wife.) They could have thought to themselves, "I'll be dead soon and I was going to give my estate to the church (or some of it to the pastor), why not give some of it now." They might have thought, "Well I've known Chris since he was a boy, surely he couldn't have done this."

On the other hand... Why give a full $250,000 right off the bat, UNLESS the defense attorney said "We need 250K retainer in order to take this"? But...mightn't a person in this frame of mind (thinking that CC was innocent and wanting to help) hold some type of fantasy that LE would find the real perp soon and CC would be released, i.e. the defense costs might not get to $250K. Why wouldn't they say, "I'll chip in, you just let me know if you need more." Seems that a retiree who saved their whole life to manage through old age might be a little more conservative in their gift (at least at first), unless they were really really loaded (which can happen after 70 years of saving.)

Which leads to the question... What might the retainer have been? The defense attorney was hired right off the bat (May 5th, day of murders.) With nothing more than the client saying, "They interviewed me for X hours, I'm scared" -- would an attorney have said, "Okay, 10K retainer to start today, we'll talk more in the next weeks." The viewing and the funeral for Sheri and the children was on the 8th and 9th of May (if I recall correctly.) If this is when funds were being solicited, why would anyone intimate a need for as much as 250K right away...UNLESS the attorney saw the mac truck coming on the first day (with abrasions and scratches on the forearm, timing of CC leaving the house and returning, etc.) Unless they were fairly clear right away what was going to be happening and they didn't even want to touch the case without the 250K upfront. Now, I find that a bit hard to believe, but maybe I'm naive. Attorney's aren't cheap, but that seems like a WHOLE lot to be needed right away.

As far as it being a rumor started to get the ball rolling, if I heard there was already $250K given to a defense fund that early in the game, I think I would say, "Well that is a good start, you let me know down the road if there are any needs." On the other hand, we don't know when the $250K was first mentioned (rumor or otherwise.)

It will be very interesting to find out what Sheri's family learns about who contributed to, or how much was contributed to a defense fund, and through whom that money was gifted (who were the checks written to.)

Thanks for hopping on the questions Daisy

This is exactly why I was pointing out the "shell game" that JMM and it's director's ministries appear (key word) to be doing. They donate back and forth and it all falls under the heading of "donation". . .

As quoted earlier from Ministry Watch:

JMM also donates large amounts of its donor’s funds to other ministries. In a recent disclosure, the ministry also indicated that it donated $27 million, roughly one-fourth of its total revenues, to a wide variety of other ministries. These donations indicate a giving spirit at JMM but also raise questions about whether it is appropriate for money donated to JMM to be used to support other ministries. As an operating ministry, versus a charitable foundation, it is odd that JMM would pursue such extensive giving to other ministries as part of its normal operations. Furthermore, many of the ministries JMM supports could easily be supported by JMM donors directly, if they chose to do so, thereby avoiding having their gifts incur the overhead expenses of two ministries rather than just one.

Is JMM the donor of the $250,00 - directly or indirectly? I know that churches receive "anonymous" donations all of the time (But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. . . Matt 6:3)

JMM & CC could funnel money into a defense fund and the church (and JMM) could pretty easily manipulate information as to who the donor(s) were. . . and where the funds went to. IMHO.

 

[Kimster]

If JMM is pulling a donation scam, which has not been proven so I'm hesitant to discuss it at this point, the Lord WILL deal with them harshly. God made it very clear in Acts how He feels about lying when it comes to His business. IF they are not doing God's will in this regard, He will certainly deal with them!!!

The members of the early Christian community agreed to devote their property to the work of furthering the gospel and of assisting the poor and needy. The proceeds of the possessions they sold were placed at the disposal of the apostles (Acts 4:36,37). Ananias might have kept his property had he so chosen; but he professed agreement with the brethren in the common purpose, and had of his own accord devoted it all, as he said, to these sacred ends. Yet, he retained a part of it for his own ends, and thus lied in declaring that he had given it all. “The offense of Ananias and Sapphira showed contempt of God, vanity and ambition in the offenders, and utter disregard of the corruption which they were bringing into the society. Such sin, committed in despite of the light which they possessed, called for a special mark of divine indignation.”http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ananias.html

(For those that don't know the result of what happened to Ananias and Sapphira for thier treachery, they were "smote" - er, they died on the spot!)

 

[Lindadanette]

If JMM is pulling a donation scam, which has not been proven so I'm hesitant to discuss it at this point, the Lord WILL deal with them harshly. God made it very clear in Acts how He feels about lying when it comes to His business. IF they are not doing God's will in this regard, He will certainly deal with them!!!

The members of the early Christian community agreed to devote their property to the work of furthering the gospel and of assisting the poor and needy. The proceeds of the possessions they sold were placed at the disposal of the apostles (Acts 4:36,37). Ananias might have kept his property had he so chosen; but he professed agreement with the brethren in the common purpose, and had of his own accord devoted it all, as he said, to these sacred ends. Yet, he retained a part of it for his own ends, and thus lied in declaring that he had given it all. “The offense of Ananias and Sapphira showed contempt of God, vanity and ambition in the offenders, and utter disregard of the corruption which they were bringing into the society. Such sin, committed in despite of the light which they possessed, called for a special mark of divine indignation.”http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ananias.html

(For those that don't know the result of what happened to Ananias and Sapphira for thier treachery, they were "smote" - er, they died on the spot!)

Kimster, you are so right on! But they may truly believe they are entitled because they are working for "the greater good" - doing "Gods" work. I just found it disturbing that they are controlling all of these funds through a closely held network of "partners" that creates a whole lot of latitude for "creative finance". I do feel pretty confident that the prosecutors and the MCS are digging deep to find the money trail!

 

[Kimster]

It's interesting where this is going because I wonder if it is the way the Lord is going to deal with their mishandling of funds, if indeed that is what they are doing. One thing for sure, if their hearts were telling them it was for the Lord, He will deal with them accordingly. God is fair and just - those are two of His unchanging traits!

And the reason I am cautious about saying they are mishandling their funds is because woe to me if I were to be involved in ruining the reputation of my brethren. We really need to be careful here if we are members of the church body!

 

[johnrodz]

In ref to the rumored $ donated to CC defense fund:

Early on, JM could have felt guilty because the threats were related to her and JMM. She may have believed him to be innocent at that time. She was as close to him as family, and family are the last to believe their loved one is guilty. She may be one of the ones wanting the money back. JMO

 

[johnrodz]

In ref to the rumored $ donated to CC defense fund:

Early on, JM could have felt guilty because the threats were related to her and JMM. She may have believed him to be innocent at that time. She was as close to him as family, and family are the last to believe their loved one is guilty. She may be one of the ones wanting the money back. JMO

Quoting my own post: :crazy:

After typing my last post, I had another thought. I would find it highly possible that JM may have given CC a good size severance package. Maybe one that could pay for his defense ILO a hold harmless signature. JMO If she was thinking or being advised about damage control she may have felt that if by some chance he were innocent he would have a very good case for a law suit against JMM. CC's employment with JM got his family murdered. Again, she may have still thought he was innocent at the time she let him go. I think most the people close to CC believed he was innocent until the Preliminary Hearing. JMO

 

[Wrinkles]

Hello JohnRodz,

Thanks for weighing in on the questions. I suppose it could be possible that JM, "personally" gifted toward the fund (having formerly believed in, trusted CC), however, I'm wondering if LE didn't give some heads up to a number of people early on, directly or indirectly, if by no other means than asking questions. I think we can be fairly sure that people like Sheri's pastor and JM may have been some of the first approached to answer questions. Had I been approached under the circumstances and depending upon the questions, I think I might have gotten a feel for what LE was considering. Hard to tell...

As far as a severance package... Could have been one, but really, whether Chris was or was not eventually convicted as the murderer, I feel sure that there was no doubt that he broke company policy (trysts on company property, or trysts on the company credit card, or immoral conduct like videos or graphics of *advertiser censored* type things on the companies air card or laptop etc.) I think that Chris was probably approached with, "We have every reason to fire you, but we will give you an option, be fired or resign." I think offering him the ability to resign covered them, they offered him a way out without having to knock him out (although they almost definitely had proof that would have permitted that safely), i.e. he resigned from his job, he was not fired. In the event that he was later found not guilty of the murders, he resigned, it was his choice, and the resignation paperwork was probably clear -- thus this shouldn't hinder other job applications as a black mark of a public "firing" (should he not be guilty and be back in the job market.)

I think that his employers probably ante'd up with anything they might have owed him up to that point and as they would under the terms of any resignation of any employee. That might have included a lump sum of some sort, but as employers, there may well have been timing on lump sums owed i.e. if my husband resigns prior to his quarterly commission check, he gets none of it -- it is understood that if you are gone before the date the check is due, the commission is bye bye. Separation package for a resignation, I don't think so -- but I can be naive.

But... Interesting, if JM did gift towards a defense fund, because she was solicited and had formerly cared for CC (and his family), might she feel a responsibility to go to and discuss with Sheri's family attorney? Under the circumstances, had I been blindsided and gave a large chunk due to extreme care for someone who I just could not foresee as murderer AND before I learned the evidence, might I go to Sheri's family attorney and say, "Please know that I was clueless, but I think you need to know this..." Quite possibly. Was I wrong for giving when I thought it was a right and caring thing to do? No...not in my opinion. Would I be right in going to the right party to lay things on the table later when I learned some facts? IMO, yes!

Thanks for the interesting thoughts JohnRodz.

 

[VCDaedalus]

That's a most interesting concept. Hm . . . is Pastor Ron a man of repressed passions? It's not unheard of, if I recall correctly, for men of God to err in this way.

 

[johnrodz]

Hello JohnRodz,

Thanks for weighing in on the questions. I suppose it could be possible that JM, "personally" gifted toward the fund (having formerly believed in, trusted CC), however, I'm wondering if LE didn't give some heads up to a number of people early on, directly or indirectly, if by no other means than asking questions. I think we can be fairly sure that people like Sheri's pastor and JM may have been some of the first approached to answer questions. Had I been approached under the circumstances and depending upon the questions, I think I might have gotten a feel for what LE was considering. Hard to tell...

As far as a severance package... Could have been one, but really, whether Chris was or was not eventually convicted as the murderer, I feel sure that there was no doubt that he broke company policy (trysts on company property, or trysts on the company credit card, or immoral conduct like videos or graphics of *advertiser censored* type things on the companies air card or laptop etc.) I think that Chris was probably approached with, "We have every reason to fire you, but we will give you an option, be fired or resign." I think offering him the ability to resign covered them, they offered him a way out without having to knock him out (although they almost definitely had proof that would have permitted that safely), i.e. he resigned from his job, he was not fired. In the event that he was later found not guilty of the murders, he resigned, it was his choice, and the resignation paperwork was probably clear -- thus this shouldn't hinder other job applications as a black mark of a public "firing" (should he not be guilty and be back in the job market.)

I think that his employers probably ante'd up with anything they might have owed him up to that point and as they would under the terms of any resignation of any employee. That might have included a lump sum of some sort, but as employers, there may well have been timing on lump sums owed i.e. if my husband resigns prior to his quarterly commission check, he gets none of it -- it is understood that if you are gone before the date the check is due, the commission is bye bye. Separation package for a resignation, I don't think so -- but I can be naive.

Thanks for the interesting thoughts JohnRodz.

Thank you for commenting on my random thoughts.

I just want to clerify that I don't think that JM would be consernd about being liable for firing CC, but if he were found not guilty (by some miracle) I am sure many trial attorneys could find fault with JMM for CC's family being murdered because he worked for JMM. Also, if JM did not know all the details at that time may have stii thought he could not have murdered his family. JMO

 

[waterlooinspector]

If it is a rumor, maybe the Coleman family started it to get the ball rolling so to speak.

If it is not a rumor, maybe the Coleman family "donated" to the fund for the same reason.

DD, CC's best friend... but he's not a swindler like the Coleman's so I don't know if he would have that kind of money laying around.

I can't think of any reason why someone who is not related to CC would be motivated to help CC's defense. I can see why the Coleman's would be motivated to make a pathetic attempt to show the public that they are not the only one's who strongly support CC.

I disagree with your assumption that no one else but the family would help. The members of Grace Church appear to have been duped by RC and his clan. Nothing would surprise me about the loyalty that the flock of Grace Church show to the Colemans. The very fact that we have not heard from many of the members on this board or in the comments on the PD boards show that they have been blinded and perhaps warned not to read reports in the media or listen to common sense.

The amount of money contributed might very well be substantial and come from sources that would surprise all of us.

 

[Wrinkles]

Hello JohnRodz,

... I just want to clerify that I don't think that JM would be consernd about being liable for firing CC, but if he were found not guilty (by some miracle) I am sure many trial attorneys could find fault with JMM for CC's family being murdered because he worked for JMM. Also, if JM did not know all the details at that time may have stii thought he could not have murdered his family. JMO

Okay... Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I think attorneys might have a hard time proving that JMM owed CC life protection simply because he worked for them and someone was blackmailing him, so to speak, i.e. "Quit working for her or else..." Doesn't blackmail get put into the FBI's hands? CC did have the option to quit working for JMM, if he truly felt his family was threatened. There are many people who would quit a job for far less than a threat to their family. I think it is appropriate for an employee to inform an employer, but ultimately CC was in charge of his family's safety. That's why the surveillance equipment in his home was missing! :furious:

You know though... Wouldn't it be interesting to find out to whom that first threat was shown and what the response was? Is it possible that CC said, "Don't tell the boss" -- but he mentioned it to others at JMM (to begin setting up his plot). Or, maybe he wanted it to go to the boss and she said, "Chris, if you feel endangered, I will offer you a severance package, it will be enough to move you away if you like." What if he said, "Oh no boss, but if you could just front me the money to buy a ton of surveillance equipment for my home..." Or "If you could just move Sheri and the kids to X location until we resolve this..." I could imagine any number of responses, from JM and any number of further responses from CC.

If this goes to trial, my guess is that we will hear far more to enlighten us.

 

[VCDaedalus]

He gets access to funds from the state if they ask for the DP. I just wonder if his parents' money counts.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I have to catch up with the thread, but it looks like this article was just posted on the web:

"The lawyer for Sheri Coleman's family wants to know whether donations to a church headed by the Rev. Ronald Coleman are being used for the benefit of the minister's son, Christopher Coleman, who is charged with killing his wife and two sons in Columbia.
Ronald Coleman, minister at Grace Church Ministries in Chester, has said he will not comment on the case.
Testimony by Columbia Police Chief Joe Edwards outlining evidence against Christopher Coleman so disturbed one donor to a bereavement fund collected by the Chester church that the donor stopped payment on the check."

read more at http://www.bnd.com/news/local/story/815996.html

 

[waterlooinspector]

I have to catch up with the thread, but it looks like this article was just posted on the web:


read more at http://www.bnd.com/news/local/story/815996.html

Thanks Daisy for posting the article.

The journalist who wrote the article said:

"Christopher Coleman resigned from Joyce Meyer Ministries after he was questioned about a violation of the organization's moral conduct policy. Edwards testified in a preliminary hearing earlier this month that Christopher Coleman would have violated Meyer's policy if he got a divorce, but a ministry spokesman said there was no such policy against divorce."

I sent Ms. Hundsdorfer and email asking that she identify the spokesman at JMM that stated that there was no such policy against divorce. Such a statement is in direct contradition from what has been reported by employees.

I will post her answer when received.

 

[lajr56]

If you knew you were not guilty of this crime, would you not assume that life insurance would pay for the funerals? I would. What was the need for a 'bereavement fund'? On the day of the funerals? I could see starting one later on if there was some problem or glitch with the life insurance. But AT the funerals?